Who Owns Weblog Content?

dirvish writes "Information Week has a story discussing copyright issues and legal rights associated with employee blogs and RSS readers. Recently, some companies have come out with formal weblog policies and others have fired employees for inappropriate blogging. With an increase in official company blogs, and some large companies like Microsoft and Google offering popular blogging services, the issues become even more clouded. Some bloggers are beginning to speak out about corporate and government control, others would probably prefer to not risk their jobs."

Comments

If you are a billionaire, you own it! ;-)

[xmas2003]

Mark Cuban's Blog - owner of the Dallas Mavericks ...

Common sense...

[winkydink]

You are still bound by any agreements you have with your employer when you blog, especially if you represent yourself as an employee.

On a slightly-related note: Has anybody else noticed that Information Week has been getting awfully thin these past few issues? Trouble on the horizon?

Re:Common sense...

[QMO]

I don't think that my employer could stop me from blogging, but:
I did agree not to reveal confidential things, so I'd have to be careful about that.
I did agree that anything I create while employed here belongs to my employer, anything, work-related, or not, on my own time, or not, is theirs.

This last is the main barrier that I can see to my remaining with this company for the long term.

Re:Common sense...

[Lord_Dweomer]

"You are still bound by any agreements you have with your employer when you blog, especially if you represent yourself as an employee."

BINGO! This is such an important point, I hope they bring it up if this ever goes to court. This is simply a new medium for speech which would be regulated by currently existing contracts signed at hiring. There's already rules about what you can and can't say about your employer, why should the web be any different? (Unless you're whistle blowing perhaps)

And aside from legal aspects of this, its a pretty well known fact that if you start talking shit about a company you work for, sooner or later, they'll find a way to get rid of you without you getting wrongful termination. It just never works out. If you want to say things about your company, be smart, do it anonymously, and don't let it get traced back to you in dumb ways like using special info that would make it obviously you or by telling people.

And on the internet, remember that it takes the existing rule of "you never know who people know" where you be careful of what you say because you never know who it can get back to and magnifies it because not only do you never know who people know, but you don't even know if the people are the people they say they are.

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

my employer can fuck off and die in regards to what I do on my personal time at home. they try to say they own my inventions and thoughts (the copy I signed had them crossed out and intialed by me) but it can not hold up in court.

but, my real "contraversial" blog is under a psudonym... so they cant do crap because they do not know it's me. and i release all my inventions to the world for free.

Re:Common sense...

[hhawk]

Not only is there common sense here, but also common law and lots of case law about writing, writing for hire, etc.

You do it about your company, on company time and on company equipment it's the companies IP unless you have a specific agreement otherwise.

The only murky area seems to be if you did it at home, on your time, without compensation, but it's including directly as part of some offical web site; then it just looks like you were doing your office work at home.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

"sooner or later, they'll find a way to get rid of you without you getting wrongful termination."

I agree with this post, but I just thought I would point something out here. Every state, except Montana, is an at-will employment state. What that means is that unless you have an employment CONTRACT, and not just an offer letter and the like (pro athletes have contracts, most others don't), your employer can fire you at ANY time for ANY reason at all (with the exception of certain prohibited reasons, like firing you because of your race, national origin, that sort of thing). So, you could go to work today, and your employer could fire you for wearing a red shirt. Or fire you just because he couldn't get it up with the wife last night.

Wrongful termination means being fired for whistleblowing, or for using your FMLA or other leave rights, being fired after exercising some other protected right (like making an OSHA complaint), or being fired because of your membership in a protected class (race, gender, national origin, religon, age if over 40, there's a couple of others I can't remember off of the top of my head). ANY other firing, by definition, is not "wrongful termination."

So, they don't NEED the evidence to fire you. They may WANT the evidence because of some internal reasons, but there is no LEGAL reason to obtain the evidence. You can ALWAYS be fired for just about anything.

Of course, you can quit whenever you want to -- that's the flip side of at-will -- they can't make you keep working if you don't want to.

Just wanted to point that out...

Re:Common sense...

[reallocate]

In the U.S., most private employees can be terminated just because the emploer wants to. Absent a union or individual contract that specifieds otherwise, employees work at the pleasure of the employer.

So, use your head. If you use any property that belongs to your employer to do anything your employer isn't paying you to do, you are putting your job at risk.

If you post to your blog only at home, tell the world who you work for, and then post opinion about your employer, you are putting your job at risk.

Is this a free speech issue? No, because your employer is not thwarting your right to post to your blog, even if you are fired.

Re:Common sense...

[Opie812]

I did agree that anything I create while employed here belongs to my employer, anything, work-related, or not, on my own time, or not, is theirs.

Did you just say (amongst other things) that stuff you create on your own time that is not related to your work belongs to your employer?

Ouch!

Is that a common provision? I guess I should have read the documents I signed when I began working for my current employer.

Re:Common sense...

[essreenim]

In the U.S., most private employees can be terminated just because the emploer wants to. Absent a union or individual contract that specifieds otherwise, employees work at the pleasure of the employer.

Wtf? your employer terminates your contract. They are often evil but they haven't got into termination...yet

You're right about the second part though. We are their amusement puppets.

Re:Common sense...

[QMO]

I always read documents before I sign them. The trouble is that I don't always consider what I've read.

In this case I did consider. I had been effectively out of work for over 18 months, and considered it was my best option.

Re:Common sense...

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that wrongful termination is a very thin claim. I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the most you can hope for is a couple of months of salary - a nice leaving bonus, but hardly worth it after the amount of effort you need to spend preparing the case etc.

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason they want the evidence is because if they fired you for just-cause, they officially don't have to pay you unemployment. Now, typically proving "just-cause" in this case is very difficult, and in a lot of instances employers won't say much out of fear of being sued by the former-employee...

Re:Common sense...

[no haters]

IANAL, but I believe you are wrong from the law classes I have taken, here's why: You are correct that in most states, employment is at-will, but they cannot fire you for ANY reason. At-will employment means that they can fire you for GOOD reason or for NO reason, but they cannot fire you for BAD reasons. Firing you for wearing a red shirt or for not getting it up with the wife are bad reasons, and you CANNOT be fired for them. The key, however, is being able to prove that you were fired for a bad reason. If you were able to prove that your employer fired you for wearing a red shirt that was not against company policy, then you would be entitled to sue for wrongful termination. It's not just limited to the biggies (race, sex, whistleblowing). Correct me if you have more information, but this is how my law textbook/professor explained it to us.

Re:Common sense...

[CastrTroy]

Of course, it's also important to note that they can't just fire you right away. They have to give you notice, or pay in lieu of notice. Which is 2 weeks minimum, although depending on how long you have been working there, they owe you more. This is how it works in Canada anyway. I'm pretty sure the US is the same.

Re:Common sense...

[Lord_Dweomer]

IANAL, but in the states here, I don't think they owe you anything if they fire you for certain reasons, and I'm sure it varies by state (which is why EVERYBODY should read up on their states employment laws). I mean, if someone's being a bad employee, they can just say have your desk in a box by 12 and security will escort you out, and they won't owe you anything (unless the court says otherwise). But again, IANAL, and could be completely wrong about this.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

Well, IAAL, and the fact is, unless you are a member of a protected class, have exercised some protected right, or have an employement contract, you can fired for any reason at all, or even no reason whatsoever.

What encompasses "membership in a protected class" or "exercised a protected right" may be different from state-to-state -- for example, in California, "sexual preference" is a state protected class, but is not a protected class at the federal level, and not in most states.

Now, if an employer fires you for any reason other than what is considered a "good cause" under your state's unemployement laws, then you can collect unemployement, so a company may try and hold off firing you until they can meet the "good cause" requirements under their particular state's unemployment laws, in order to deny you unemployment -- but they can still fire you for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all, expect for the certain protected classes listed above.

And company policies really have nothing to do with this. They can sometimes be used to show "implied contracts" of one sort of another, usually with respect to vacation pay and the like, but they are generally not legal documents in the sense that firing someone without taking all of the necessary steps written in the employment manual changes a lawful firing into an unlawful firing.

I think your professor was probably right -- change "bad reasons" to the list I gave above, and then you are right on.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

No, in the U.S., they can fire you immediately. The laws vary from state to state, but in California, for example, if you are fired, you have to be given your final paycheck within a certain period of time (3 days, I think), along with payment for accrued but unused vacation time. This type of stuff varies depending on what state you are in, but the "at-will" nature of employment means you can be fired at any time -- even right now!

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you start talking shit about a company you work for, sooner or later, they'll find a way to get rid of you without you getting wrongful termination. It just never works out.

They pay you, you publicly bash them. For some reason they just don't like that...

Re:Common sense...

[Kainaw]

There's already rules about what you can and can't say about your employer, why should the web be any different?

My contract with the Navy was not renewed because I made a blog entry on a website that was in no way attached to the military or government (attached below in case you actually care about it). The Navy's point is that if I had said this in a public place, it is OK. However, terrorists can read web pages, so any dissent falls under the Patriot Act.

The blog entry:
I am a bit worried about the project I'm now working on. The project head is supposed to be a Software Engineer. In the few weeks that I've worked with him, I have found that he is completely unable to program in any of the required languages, he knows very little about installing software on a computer, and his knowledge of database administration is limited to what the paperclip guy in MS Access can tell him to do. Further investigation has dug up that he was a telephone support person for a software company, but I don't know how he lost his job. After that, he worked in retail sales at a national men's clothing store. Then, he woke up one day and decided he was a Senior Software Engineer. He flubbed an application to a government contractor, got hired, and is now in charge of this project. Now, if I could just place my finger on what is worrying me about this project...

Re:Common sense...

[Pionar]

That's the problem with you Brits. You just don't know how to sue the shit out of someone on flimsy claims and net embarassingly large rewards. And you wonder why the empire fell.

Americans are litigous bastards, so sue me.

Re:Common sense...

[Tim C]

Is it really that common not to have an employment contract though? I'm in the UK, and I'd not put up with not having a proper, signed contract for very long unless there was a damn good reason for it. (Even then, I'd very much keep my options open)

Re:Common sense...

[shawn(at)fsu]

"if common sense were common every body would have it"

My dad says that to me all the time when I tell him something is common sense.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

Very, very few jobs in the U.S. outside of union jobs and certain skilled professional services (like actors,musicians and professional athletes) have real, enforceable employment contract -- it's just the way things are in the U.S. The down side is that the employer can fire you pretty much whenever (see other posts in this thread) -- the plus side is that you can freely move whenever you want.

Re:Common sense...

[Dwonis]

To add to that, in Canada (at least in Saskatchewan, and as far as I understand, it's the same in every province) there is a difference between laying off someone, and firing someone.

If you (as an employer) are laying someone off, you don't need to show cause, but you have to give prior notice, or pay in lieu of notice.

If you are firing someone, you can do it immediately, but if they sue you for wrongful dismissal, they will probably win unless you can show cause.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

Re:Common sense...

[DM9290]

Of course, you can quit whenever you want to -- that's the flip side of at-will -- they can't make you keep working if you don't want to.

That is NOT really the flip side. It is a ramification of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
In so far as this is a right you ALREADY have, the employer has not given you anything by allowing you to terminate your own employment at will.

The employer has no inalienable rights at stake in an employment relationship, but merely property rights. And the employer presumably already agreed at least verbally with the employee "if you agree to come in each day and do X and I agree that I will pay you Y". Thus it is implicitly unfair and a violation of property rights for EITHER side to arbitrarily terminate the agreement.

note, I claim: basic property law would show that NEITHER side may terminate employment arbitrarily.

However, since the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is "inalienable" it can not be sold or transferred by the employee (he has no right to sell that) therefore the right always remains with the employee notwithstanding any other agreement to the contrary.

To properly justify "at-will" termination, I would argue that the employer makes it clear prior to employment that "I reserve the right to fire you at any time arbitrarily".

Watch how much loyalty his employees show him then.

It is a falacious argument when an employer uses the employees right to quit at any time to justify their imagined right to "terminate" at any time.

The employer has the right to enter into a contractual relationship obliging him to continue paying the employee for services rendered. This is a standard property law right to dispose of your property and enter into contracts.

If a contract has no specific termination date, then it is presumed to continue basically indefinitely as long as both parties continue to abide by the terms.

Every job offer I've had, implied a perpetual term of employment (after a short probationary period). To the extent that it actually bound me to work forever it was invalid. I do not have the right to transfer my liberty to the employer.

anyways.. my arguments here are directed towards how I think employment rights OUGHT to be interpretted. Unfortunately the poor SOBs getting screwed by their employers are typically too poor or uneducated to realize that they have the right to hold the employer accountable to the original agreement. i.e. I continue getting paid by you as long as I continue doing what we agreed that I would do for you.

A state is free to grant "the right to fire", as
this is merely a modification of property law. Rendering the contract invalid in so far as it implied a perpetual obligation on either side. However I would argue that unless a state explicitly grants the right of "at-will termination",
then common property law says neither side can abscond, (without penalty) and constitutional law (which takes precedence) says, notwithstanding common law, the employee can always walk off the job and can not tranfer his right to walk off the job.

Re:Common sense...

[winkydink]

It's a pretty common clause. Better go check. That's why it's best to list a bunch of exclusions when you fill out that paperwork. Most time, unless they are in direct conflist with what your employer does, they buy off on them.

Re:Common sense...

[batemanm]

The Navy's point is that if I had said this in a public place, it is OK. However, terrorists can read web pages, so any dissent falls under the Patriot Act.

Hmm I didn't know that terrorists couldn't get into public places.

Re:Common sense...

[Hope Thelps]

I'm in the UK too, and have an employment contract of course. I think the thought of my employers being able to fire me without any notice wouldn't scare me as much as the thought of me being able to quit without notice would scare them. And that's not based on me being anything special, I don't think they'd agree to anyone above the most junior level being able to quit without notice. In fact I'm positive that even the most junior staff require a month's notice by either side.

Re:Common sense...

[pizen]

This type of stuff varies depending on what state you are in, but the "at-will" nature of employment means you can be fired at any time -- even right now!

So stop reading Slashdot and get back to work.

-Your Boss

Re:Common sense...

[eison]

Yes, it really is that common. Union jobs usually negotiate employment contracts, but union jobs are pretty rare except in particular industries. Contractors get contracts. Full-timers, no contract.

Most of America is on no-contract employment-at-will. I've worked four full-time professional programming jobs with no employment contract ; nobody I know has ever had a salaried position with an employment contract (I know a few consultants, and they have contracts). It's just how it's done.

Re:Common sense...

[Jason Earl]

Nothing personal, but you got fired for an accute case of stupid. Technical skills are no substitute for a bit of political sense. With one blog entry you made your direct superior, and everyone involved in hiring him look like idiots in a public forum. The folks that got you run would have run you no matter where or how you made the remark (assuming that it got back to them), they simply would have used a different excuse. Too many technical folks think that their technical skills mean that they don't have to learn some people skills, and in today's market that simply isn't the case.

The reason that you were fired is that you made people with power and authority over you look bad in public, terrorism was just the excuse that they used. Coming up with an excuse to fire someone is not nearly as hard as you would think, especially to folks that have access to all of your email, Internet sites you visit during work, and whatever else.

The worst part is that with a little bit of political knowledge you could easily have had your direct superior run, but you could probably have received his job as a promotion as well.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

"A state is free to grant "the right to fire", as
this is merely a modification of property law. Rendering the contract invalid in so far as it implied a perpetual obligation on either side. However I would argue that unless a state explicitly grants the right of "at-will termination",
then common property law says neither side can abscond, (without penalty) and constitutional law (which takes precedence) says, notwithstanding common law, the employee can always walk off the job and can not tranfer his right to walk off the job."

When I said "flip side" I wasn't invoking property law of slavery or anything, I was talking about contract law. If you have a contract, then BOTH sides have obligations, and if either side breaks those obligations, they are in breach of the contract.

Even if you had an employment contract, you could still leave at any time -- you are right, the employer cannot force you to work, that would be slavery -- but you WILL have consequences for the breach of contract.

So, when you don't have a contract, you are free to leave, the employer is free to fire you, without legal consequences.

Re:Common sense...

[Tassach]

Yes, it's a been standard clause in the employement agreement for just about every development job I've taken. It's also one I make them amend before I agree to take the job.

These things ARE negotiable, and you're a fool if you don't negotiate. I've only had one potential employer refuse to remove a "everything you do outside the office belongs to us" clause, and that was a BIG RED FLAG which told me I did *not* want to work there.

Job interviews work both ways: they're checking you out to see if they want you to work for them, you need to be checking them out to make sure you wan to work for them. Even if you *ARE* so desperate that you'd take the job for minimum wage and on the condition that you'll service the boss orally 3 times a week, you never let *THEM* know that. Whenever you're offered a job, you always let them think that you have another offer on the table.

Re:Common sense...

[Tristor]

So very true, I ran into this same problem with a past employer. I was blogging about my days at work and the weird sorts of customers that would come in that day. I got tons of readers from it, and after awhile, my employer found out about it. I was instructed to remove all content relating to my job, or be terminated immediately. This was my first job ever, so I didn't want to be fired. I went ahead and removed the content, even though it was free speech, I signed nothing agreeing to not say anything about my day at work, and it didn't mention the company name, the customer or coworker names, or even the location I worked at. I absolutely hated doing it, and kind of wish I hadn't. I lost most of my readers after removing that content, especially since that summed up all but 2 of the post on my weblog at the point of removal.

Re:Common sense...

[kaiidth]

In the UK, contracts are pretty much unavoidable: there's a handy page on it here.

The contract can be verbal, but within two months of starting work the employer is required to provide employees with a written statement of the main terms of the contract. This is good to know if you're working for a shadowy sort of organisation - you can legally walk in and hit them with the Employment Rights Act 1996, and if they refuse to cough up a contract after two months - or indeed sack you - you are legally in the right and can do them for it...

Anyone who works in the UK without a contract, be careful; at the minimum, you're probably working illegally in that your employers have probably not gone through the motions as far as national insurance goes, and are not planning to do so. In this case, you will not be eligible for normal unemployment pay afterwards :(

As far as I know, broadly similar terms apply in Germany and in France.

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but if there is trouble you might want to consult one. In some cases the courts will find that the contract is invalid because you were given no choice. Being out of work for 18 months implies that unemployment is long gone, so you needed a job now.

Only a lawyer can tell you how that applies to your situation. However depending on what is happening it might be worth asking.

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can have you pack your desk and leave by noon. However in most cases they will call you to HR and say "You can give us two weeks now and be gone by noon, or we will fire you and you will be gone by noon". Anyone with intelligence will immediately write a letter of resignation - at least you can honestly tell your potential boss at the next company you were not fired, and they will not contradict that. It is hard to get a job if you have been fired, while people resign all the time.

Companies hate to fire someone unless they are turning you over to police custody along with evidence of some crime. Unless all the paperwork is done correctly it is too easy to claim in court that you were doing the job and deserve some severance. Its worth paying someone two weeks of not working if you must get rid of them. That letter is protection for them (and in your best interests unless you have good reason to sue them already).

Re:Common sense...

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"Is this a free speech issue? No, because your employer is not thwarting your right to post to your blog, even if you are fired.
"

They arn't stopping you because they can't, but such a severe punishment is definately a free speech issue. Its the equiv of being tortured for publishing something. Sure they can't stop the publication, but they can strongly urge others to not do the same. And if you don't think cutting off a familys only source of income is tantamount to torture, you havn't seen most american familys.

Re:Common sense...

[Cowardly Anonym]

I had never heard of the concept of "at-will" employment (I'm Canadian) before you mentioned it, and having looked it up, I'm amazed that the U.S. has such a thing:

History of At-Will Employment Law in the USA

From the above site:
"... the USA is alone among the industrialized nations of the world in providing no protection against wrongful termination of employment."

Re:Common sense...

[reallocate]

I didn't say it wasn't an issue. I just said it isn't a free speech issue. The right to speak freely doesn't mean there are no consequences for that speech. Sometimes you say what you think and someone clobbers you. The right of free speech doesn't mean you have a right to escape the consequences of your speech.

In the U.S., Congress can pass no law restraining free speech. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit your employer from firing you.

Re:Common sense...

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, I accidentally left out the part about not being able to fire you without cause. If they have a good reason, they can just fire you with no notice, and with no pay.

Re:Common sense...

[DM9290]

Even if you had an employment contract, you could still leave at any time -- you are right, the employer cannot force you to work, that would be slavery -- but you WILL have consequences for the breach of contract.

To the extent that any employment contract agrees than an employee surrenders any inalienable right (such as his right to walk off the job), the contract is illegal and can not be enforced.

If the state interprets the law correctly (I don't presume that the state always interprets the law correctly) the state will not intervene to enforce such a breech of contract. The employer could rely on certain contract law rights and stop paying the employee and is probably able to terminate the contract by resorting to those laws. But no punitive damages could ever be rewarded.

On the other hand, as a property owner you are at liberty to agree to pay money to other parties. And such a contract for services rendered *is* completely binding. You are not free to unilaterally discontinue such a contract without compensating the other party for damages. And if you breech the contract without cause, you *are* subject to punitive damages.

And the state SHOULD hold you to it.

Thus, unless the employees conduct is such that the employee is himself in breech of an implied or explicit term of his employment agreement, or you agreed in advance that you may terminate the contract at any time without warning, then you don't have any escape clause from your contract.

So, when you don't have a contract, you are free to leave, the employer is free to fire you, without legal consequences.

I've never heard of people working without a contract. That is more like panhandling or busking.
Doing work spontaneously in the hope that someone will feel grateful and make a donation. Try simply showing up someplace and starting work. You are likely to be escorted off the premises by security.

every normal employment relationship has an "Agreement". An agreement may be merely verbal, but the agreement exists.

The question I have. In the 49 or so "fire-at-will" states. Is there a law on the books which actually grants employers the right to "fire-at-will" or is this simply something that employers CLAIM to have, and no one has fought?

FYI: I live in Canada and "fire-at-will" is not available here.

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? What sort of country allows people to be legally fired for no reason? Don't you have some kind of unfair dismissal policy? If not - why not?

Re:Common sense...

[glitch23]

What encompasses "membership in a protected class" or "exercised a protected right" may be different from state-to-state -- for example, in California, "sexual preference" is a state protected class, but is not a protected class at the federal level, and not in most states.

That's because California supports homosexuals so much that to a Californian people are born homosexual and it's going to be their state motto pretty soon : We're gay and we bend over for anyone.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

"To the extent that any employment contract agrees than an employee surrenders any inalienable right (such as his right to walk off the job), the contract is illegal and can not be enforced."

An employee who signs such a contract is NOT giving up an inalienable right -- but he may have to pay a penalty for exercising that right under contract law.

I don't understand why you are having a tough time with this. Nobody forces an employee to sign an employment contract -- if they did, it would be void due to duress. But assuming no gun is involved, why can't an employee decide that the free exercise of a right (such as the right to walk away from a job at anytime without penalty) is not worth as much to him as is said employment contract? As long as such a contract involves a bargained-for exchange of promises, then there is no reason to believe the contract is illegal.

"But no punitive damages could ever be rewarded."

Punitive damages are basically forbidden in breach of contract cases anyway. U.S. law treats breach of contract as a business decision -- no "moral" characteristics that deserve "punishment" are involved, so no punitive damages.

"I've never heard of people working without a contract. That is more like panhandling or busking."

Very few employees in the U.S. work under an employment contract.

"every normal employment relationship has an "Agreement". An agreement may be merely verbal, but the agreement exists."

But an "agreement" is not a contract. And besides, how do you later prove in court the existance and substance of a verbal agreement?

"The question I have. In the 49 or so "fire-at-will" states. Is there a law on the books which actually grants employers the right to "fire-at-will" or is this simply something that employers CLAIM to have, and no one has fought?"

I can't speak for every state, but here is the California law, from the California Labor Code:

2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at
the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a
specified term means an employment for a period greater than one
month.

2926. An employee who is not employed for a specified term and who
is dismissed by his employer is entitled to compensation for services
rendered up to the time of such dismissal.

2927. An employee who is not employed for a specified term and who
quits the service of his employer is entitled to compensation for
services rendered up to the time of such quitting.

And just for completeness, "notice" above means saying "you're fired" or :I quit" -- it does not imply a time frame.

Now, if the employment WAS for a term of service, THEN you are talking about a situation where there IS an employment contract, and at-will is no longer the rule.

But virtually all regular employees in the U.S. work without an employment contract.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

"providing no protection against wrongful termination of employment"

Well, that's not completely true. We in the U.S. do have protections against wrongful termination -- its just that we have defined wrongful termination to be limited to a firing for membership in a protected class, or for exercising a protected right. We have not defined wrongful termination as "not good cause," and I think that's where the difference is.

Re:Common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution prohibits my employer from having legal grounds for firing me for exercising my right to free speech. Thus I can sue them for wrongful termination. This has already happened to me. Now I have enough dough to live comfortably for the rest of my life thanks to the settlement. Ah, I just love lawsuits...

Re:Common sense...

[zonker]

on an interesting sidenote about employment laws in california...

if you quit (don't know about being fired but it would be easy enough to find out via the dept of labor website) and you don't get your last paycheck on your final day of work you can seek a penalty against your employer. the requirements for this are that you gave at least 72 hours advance notice of quitting and that you are not a contracted employee.

i actually just went through this with my employer as they didn't have my final paycheck for me until 2.5 weeks after my final day. i told them i was filing a complaint with the dept of labor and they decided to settle out of court and pay me the penalty.

btw, the penalty is whatever you would be paid if you were still employed from the time of your last day (only those days you would normally have been scheduled to work) to the time you finally got your paycheck with a maximum of 30 days. in my case i got a nice check out of this as they screwed me out of 2.5 weeks of having my check...

Re:Common sense...

[kalirion]

I did agree that anything I create while employed here belongs to my employer, anything, work-related, or not, on my own time, or not, is theirs.

Word of advice: as long as you work there, make damn sure your wife or girlfriend is on the pill!

I own my own weblog content.

[IO ERROR]

This is really simple. I don't talk about my job on my blog. I don't write blog entries from work. My blog is not hosted by my employer. They have nothing to do with my blog, and if they want to try to exercise any control over my blog, they can go to hell.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[xXunderdogXx]

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were smokers- even if they only smoked at home.

Employers have recently tried every carrot they can think of, including cash incentives and IPods, to persuade employees to quit smoking. Now they are trying the stick. Pointing to rising health costs, and to the oversize proportion of insurance claims attributed to smokers, employers around the United States are refusing to hire applicants who smoke, and sometimes they're firing employees who refuse to quit. Workers fired for smoking at home

The issue is slightly less applicable to blogging, of course, because there are no immediate health effects except for perhaps diminished social life.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Romeozulu]

if they want to try to exercise any control over my blog, they can go to hell.

Great attitude. You're probably one of those people that is a complete ass, then get fired and blames everyone but themselves.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Cylix]

Exactly my policy as well.

There is nothing in my blog that relates to work... unless someone told a particularly funny joke. The extent of even mentioning work is usually something along the lines of, "sorry for no updates... I've been busy with work."

Now slashdot is another story...

People need to use common sense and not put something in writing that will jeopardize their employment. It really doesn't matter the medium used.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great attitude. You're probably one of those people that is a complete ass, then get fired and blames everyone but themselves.

And you're probably the mid-level manager who keeps firing all the top-performing employees and brings in fresh blood from off the street who don't know a computer from a hole in the ground.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were smokers- even if they only smoked at home.

Yeah, I heard about that. I'd be shocked if the workers don't win that lawsuit, but we'll see. I know the parallel isn't perfect, but replace "smoker" with "pregnant woman" and see how far, legally, that goes.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[ThosLives]

Well, it becomes a really fuzzy issue. Health care is a direct cost the employer must pay, and it's a *benefit*, not an obligation. Companies could get around the whole issue with people smoking and simply say "If you smoke, we won't pay your health insurance. We'll still offer it to you, but it will be deducted in full from your paycheck, or you can acquire your own insurance." Add to that policies like, "you can't smoke on company property" and they should be fine - just don't fire the people! (Another thing employers could do is say, "look, we're trying to be nice and offer you insurance and all, but we're only going to pay X amount for it. The insurance company says you're a high risk so they want to charge Y. We'll continue to pay X, but you have to pay Y-X.") This way employers can still employ and keep their costs under control, and employees could feel free to act how they desire - if they are willing to pay for it. I'm all for having people have to be a bit more aware of the (financial) consequences of their actions (being unhealthy is expensive!).

As far as blogs go, it's not as clear cut because there is no direct cost associated to a company if the blog is not divulging secrets, served off company hardware, or written on "company time". The blog may result indirectly in lost sales or something like that, but I don't know if that would fall under most employee contracts which say something about "not harming the company business."

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[essreenim]

Hello IO_ERROR, this is your employer speaking.
O own you. I pay you and I own your life. All your bloggs are belong to us.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[emilymildew]

Or one of those people who leaves the job at the office and whose personal life has nothing to do with his or her current employment.

You know, THOSE crazy people.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably one of those people that is a complete ass, then get fired and blames everyone but themselves.


There is not enough information to support this conclusion. The parent's statement was actually quite reasonable, given his former statements about the ownership, hosting, and usage of his blog.

YOU are probably one of those people who likes to judge others as being inferior to him/her self, and justifies said judgments with unwarranted conclusions like this one.

And I am probably one of those people who likes to point out how others are wrong because I am myself an ass. But I am ok with this.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[diamondsw]

Slightly less? It would be more apt to say it doesn't apply in the slightest, for exactly that reason. Smoking is a health issue, plain and simple. Blogging is not. If I blog all night or play video games all night, that doesn't affect me at work. If I smoke all the time, that affects both health insurance and potentially coworkers.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[xXunderdogXx]

I completely agree with you, I was attempting to put employer power in context.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[pclminion]

I know the parallel isn't perfect, but replace "smoker" with "pregnant woman" and see how far, legally, that goes.

I don't think the analogy is even close. Smoking is a vice. Pregnancy is not a vice -- it is a critical part of the perpetuation of the human species.

Just because both happen to involve health care costs doesn't mean that they are at all equivalent.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Mattintosh]

Pregnancy is a natural biological condition. Smoking is a habit--one with harmful side-effects that cost lots of money to treat. I see no problem with firing employees that refuse to curtail major, avoidable, unnatural risk factors that cost the company money.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[AlanS2002]

What someone chooses to do to their own body on their own time is not an employers business. How about we replace 'drinking' with 'smoking'. How far would that argument get you? Most people probably wouldn't even say it, cause it's not socially acceptable, yet, to demonize people for drinking.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

My blog is not hosted by my employer. They have nothing to do with my blog, and if they want to try to exercise any control over my blog, they can go to hell


You probably have a point WRT the blog.

Telling your employer to go to hell on the other hand, is grounds for termination. Please clear out your desk.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[lomov]

Well let's try:

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were pregnant women - even if they were pregnant only at home.

IANAL, but legal consequences of that will be, umm, mind-blowing...

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Richard_at_work]

I side with the employers on this. Smoking is disgusting, and it does harm those people who dont smoke in the office. Smokers smell, even if they take steps to mitigate the stale smoke smell - and many dont.

I currently work in an office which had a single smoker until he gave up recently. Every time he popped out for a cigarette he came back stinking, several of us had to leave the office for a couple of minutes because we just cant physically stand it.

You wouldnt accept poor personal hygiene, you wouldnt accept alcohol intake during work hours, so why accept what is just another addiction?

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[SoTuA]

So, you can be fired because you like rock-climbing? Skydiving? Table Tennis, since you mix with people who use toxic glue for their rubbers? Rapid-water kayaking? Or maybe you just got a mormon manager, or a muslim manager, and nobody can drink, even in their own homes? Hell, even soccer! (I've had some *really expensive* knee surgery because of soccer).

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[orcrist]

I see no problem with firing employees that refuse to curtail major, avoidable, unnatural risk factors that cost the company money.

So there's no problem with firing someone who goes skiing or skydiving in their free time? How about swimming? Or most sports for that matter. All risk factors. Maybe not as high as with smoking but who determines what is major? Then there's travel. Some countries are more dangerous than others; will employers have lists of 'approved' destinations for vacation? For that matter living in or visiting certain parts of many U.S. cities can increase your risk factor: "We didn't fire him because he's black, we fired him because he was visiting the ghetto where he grew up: a major, avoidable, unnatural risk factor!"

I know this is a slippery slope argument, but the point is that saving the company money shouldn't trump your freedom to spend your free time as you see fit. Life is dangerous and uncertain. You can't put everything on a balance sheet when it comes to human beings, and as long as companies are hiring human beings then they need to consider that to be the *company's* risk factor. After all there are still laws which prevent discrimination against handicapped people, even if it costs more money, and even if they are handicapped because they fell asleep at the wheel or broke their neck horse-back riding (both avoidable risk factors).

-chris

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Joules Burn]

So you won't have a problem when your employer starts checking on how much you sleep or don't because it "may" affect your health and production. And you won't mind when they start checking your grocery purchases, to make sure your eating the "right" foods, because it "could" have a negative effect on on your health and production. Oh and let us not forget alcohol..., oh yea and that wife of yours, well sorry, she just doesn't fit the company profile, we'll select a new one for you, after all we have to keep productivity up. Congradulations! You are now owned lock, stock and barrel, 24/7, for a few dollars. say baaaah.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[NeoSkandranon]

Agreed. You would be fired immediately for drinking on the job, I'm not sure why smoking is any more forgiveable; it's definitely more disturbing to work flow and other people.

I had one for a professor last year. Brilliant man but the fact that he would blow off students' questions or even end class early to pop outside to have a smoke was unforgiveable. Not to mention he stank of tobacco and you could find his office by smell (nevermind this was in a RESEARCH LAB with a strict no smoking rule. Damn tenure.)

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[opposume]

I think your missing the point here. When insurance rates go up, they go up per unit. In other words, they don't break it down on an individual basis. They say you have 1000 employees and one is a smoker, so you're going to pay the increased rate for all 1000 employees, not just the one that smokes. So it's not so simple to just make the smoker pay more. There really has to be something effective done about the epidemic of smoking, however, I agree with you that firing should be an absolute last resort. But in all fairness, IPods and cash should have done the trick... But then again, I'm not a smoker...

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

This country tried to demonize people for drinking and it failed.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Mr. Underbridge]

I don't think the analogy is even close. Smoking is a vice. Pregnancy is not a vice -- it is a critical part of the perpetuation of the human species.

As a militant non-smoker, I'd like to agree with you, but I don't think the courts are going to care. How about AIDS caught by exchanging needles? Some might say that's a disease caught from a vice. Kind of like emphysema. You watched Philadelphia lately?

Just because both happen to involve health care costs doesn't mean that they are at all equivalent.

Morally, I agree, but that's irrelevant when it goes to the courts.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were pregnant women - even if they were pregnant only at home. IANAL, but legal consequences of that will be, umm, mind-blowing...

The effects of smoking, like being pregnant, follow you to work, regardless of whether you smoke or get knocked up at work.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Zeal17]

"What someone chooses to do to their own body on their own time is not an employers business."

It becomes their business when they are paying your healthcare for when you get emphysema.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[the pickle]

Those four people weren't fired for smoking at home. RTFA you posted.

They quit, and they quit because they would have been fired for failing a company drug test, which has recently been expanded to include the use of cigarettes. (Whether they can tell that you've been smoking versus chewing tobacco or using a nicotine patch or gum is another matter.)

IANAL, but IMO, the company is perfectly justified in telling its employees that nicotine will now be tested for (and used as grounds for dismissal) in routine drug testing. What the employees do in response to that is up to them.

I do think the "nice" thing to do would be to offer smokers the option of simply paying for their own health insurance; after all, why should the company offer a benefit it can't afford to someone who is deliberately fucking up their body?

p

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should see a shrink. Seriously. You seem to have all the symptoms of a spoiled brat.

Look. I shared an office once with a woman who regularly applied an awful-smelling lotion to her hands. As another colleague put it, the smell made your eyes water. Did I try to get her fired? Did I try to get hand lotions banned? No! I just popped out for a few minutes until the time I could move to another office.

As far as alcohol vs smoking... Jesus, are you even mentally old enough to work? Alcohol alters your capacity to concentrate, among other things, smoking doesn't. And why stop at alcohol? What about coffee? That's addictive too...

How about this? How about you admit you're a whiny self-centered spoiled brat and do something about your own attitude?

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[STrinity]

Smoking is disgusting, and it does harm those people who dont smoke in the office. Smokers smell, even if they take steps to mitigate the stale smoke smell - and many dont.

Are there any perfumes or colognes you dislike, because we could ban them too. And while we're at it, perhaps we should prohibit people from eating spicey foods, because you might have to talk to them afterward and put up with their stinky breath! Oh my!

I don't smoke, but people like you make me want to take it up just to annoy you.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[zcat_NZ]

But if you consistently turn up for work with a hangover, I don't think you'd be working there long.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[sneezinglion]

So is being overweight grounds for dismissal? What I do on my own time is my business, but it should not be the sole grounds for dismissal. What about drinking? Much riskier in many ways, or airbrushing? That is dangerous to the eyes.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[xXunderdogXx]

I'm sorry but to me there is little distinction between being forced to quit for something you do at home and being outright fired.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[MoralHazard]

...but who determines what is major?

You DO have a point about how much it would suck if employers started imposing all those kinds of conditions on employees, but you're missing the bigger point, yourself. Because the obvious answer to your question is "The company decides what's too big of a risk."

Business management practices can be unpleasant to deal with, at times. They can also be dreamy and spoil you with niceness. It depends on the employer and the people setting policies. Just as you think it's silly for a boss to micromanage your private life, isn't it kind of silly for an outsider (the government?) to micromanage a business's internal HR practices? It's one thing to set a couple of big rules:

government-to-business: no sexual harassment, no racist hiring policies.

business-to-employee: we fire you if you get convicted of a felony or bad-mouth the company in public.

But beyond the basic rules, there are serious problems with further meddling. Business that try to hyper-regulate their employees' private lives will probably notice a lot of people complaining more, being less satisfied, and leaving to work at other companies if they can. It will be harder to compete in hiring good candidates because the meddling is a perceived cost to many employees. Sure, they may stay in business, but after a while the accumulating costs and lost opportunities will diminish gains made by reducing employee health care costs, or whatever motivated the invasive policies.

And if it's you, the little employee, who gets caught up in this busybody workplace? You were apparantly alive BEFORE you got that job, so I'm sure you can figure something out after you leave it. Even in a down market, people have options.

I'll admit, if a lot of companies started engaging in these kinds of practices, things would be much worse for workers. Then, there might be a rationale for the government stepping in to set guidelines about how companies can and can't regulate private employee life. But there just aren't many companies at all that do this stuff, probably for the reasons that I outlined above.

But on the other hand, if a fuck-ton of companies started doing this, I think we might want to look harder at WHY they all thought it was a good idea. There might actually be a need for it, and that's not something we can just ignore.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[OhPlz]

Pregnancy can be a habit. Since women can't be terminated for having children I've noticed one or two that just keep having one right after the other while technically still keeping their "job".

If companies truly want to control our lives in every aspect I'm sure a creative lawyer could come up with a way of getting around the legal protection for bearing children.

Perhaps it violates the companies policy of employees protecting themselves from bodily fluids or some such.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Richard_at_work]

Go ahead, take it up, kill yourself. Colognes, spicy food etc are nowhere near as intrusive and completely antisocial as smoking, and just trying to make an anal comparison like you did is just ludicrous. Every time this guy came in after smoking, people in the office got nauseous, the stench is unbelievable and on several occasions it made me either physically sick or headachy. Oh, and Ive worked with smokers in the past, it wasnt just this guy. They all stink after a cigarette. The smokers themselves dont notice it, because they are used to it, but to nonsmokers, you can always tell if someone smokes just by inhaling as someone walks by.

I stand by my post, smoking is disgusting.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[commodoresloat]

I agree - and in fact, while smoking is a higher risk factor than skiing, the chances of smoking killing you before you retire or quit are probably lower than the chances for high risk sports, since incapacitation would be immediate. I am against employers being allowed to fire you for anything that happens outside the workplace, even (especially!) exercising your free speech rights on your own time.

Of course, the problem is the employer doesn't have to give a reason at all, and of course they can just say you are fired because you're incompetent, lazy, or because they can't afford to keep you around anymore.

The bottom line is, without a contract, you really don't have any sure fire remedy if you get fired no matter what the reason (even if you suspect it is because you're black or something obviously illegal). Even with a contract it will be an uphill battle, but at least then you have a legal instrument to fight back with.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[commodoresloat]

Telling your employer to go to hell on the other hand, is grounds for termination. Please clear out your desk.

As his employer, you should have known better than to hire someone named "IO ERROR" in the first place. Please clean out your desk.

;)

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard, and I say that from personal experience. I've tried multiple times and have never been able to fully kick the habit. Currently I'm on day 2 of my current attempt, and so far so good (but it's only day 2). Usually I'm ok until I go to the bar, at which time I bum a smoke, and it goes from there. If I had to make an analogy, I would have to say it's like being an alcoholic (esp. since studies have shown that nicotine is as addictive as heroin); one smoke and the person is readdicted. And when was the last time you saw a single smoke for sale (unlike the single shots of alcohol you can buy)?

Generally the path goes like this: 1) get drunk 2) bum a smoke 3) bum another smoke 4) feel bad for having to bum smokes, so purchase a pack to pay the person back 5) realize that you don't want to waste your money (or "since I already have the pack...or etc. etc. etc.) so you say "I'll just have this pack". BOOM!!! back into smoking.

I may not agree with the testing, or employment conditions, but I do understand why the carrot didn't work.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[timmyf2371]

Correct, smoking is a disgusting habit.

As an ex-smoker I used to always chew gum after a smoking break because I myself hated the smell of stale smoke and wouldn't wish it upon anyone. However your point about colognes and other such things being nowhere as intrusive shows you've never worked in an office where a fellow collegue feels the need to wear masses and masses of it which results in an awful cough to innocent bystanders.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the smell of smoke makes you physically sick or headachy, either you have an allergy to it (there are NO known cases of such an allergy), or more likely, you have developed a severe psychological aversion towards smoking. Either way, the problem is with you and not especially the smoker. Your best bet is to either work on yourself to become more tolerant, or move to another office.

You can't get smoking banned just because you have a psychological problem with it. As mentioned, if that were the case, one should also ban perfumes which do cause allergies.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[drsquare]

Welcome to America, where your employer controls your entire life 24/7. "Land of the free" indeed.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[STrinity]

Colognes, spicy food etc are nowhere near as intrusive and completely antisocial as smoking, and just trying to make an anal comparison like you did is just ludicrous. Every time this guy came in after smoking, people in the office got nauseous, the stench is unbelievable and on several occasions it made me either physically sick or headachy.

"Physically sick" generally denotes vomiting. Are you saying that smokers make you vomit by their mere presence? Did you wear a breathing mask when you used the locker room in high school? Do you pass out when someone farts?

I suspect you're either being hyperbolic or hypersensitive. In either case, get over yourself.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Richard_at_work]

Yes, on times the sheer unsociable stench caused by smoking makes me vomit or want to vomit. I suspect that you are a smoker and dont realise how unsociable you are. Get over your addiction.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Richard_at_work]

No, that I havent, but then if they wear too much, it falls into the realms of unsociability and should be dealt with. Most companies take pride in their offices and sometimes show clients around them. Do you (this is more aimed at the others who have moderated me or replied to me negatively) feel that someone that makes the office smell strongly, either smoking, body odor, cologne or whatever should be allowed to influence that client negatively? A strong smell doesnt make you unique, it makes you reviled.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[diamondsw]

If I'm falling asleep at work or missing deadlines, they have every reason to try to find out what's going on in my personal life. If I come in hungover, they have every right to talk to me about alcohol and my personal life. If your personal life impacts your work life, then it is under their purview, as you clearly cannot control it.

Smoking is a known health risk. It confers no benefits. It is an addiction, damaging to health, and a possible (although unproven) risk to those around you. Health insurance has every right to change coverage based on risky health behaviors. You chose to smoke, your health insurance decided that would damage your health and cost them more, your employer decided not to pay that. It was YOUR decision - own up to it.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[the pickle]

None of those is anywhere near as dangerous as smoking (except being overweight, but people choose to smoke) in the long term.

Not that if there was an easy test available for them, companies wouldn't start testing for those behaviours too...

p

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[the pickle]

OK, I'll say this one more time.

They were not forced to quit. Read the fucking article you posted.

They CHOSE to quit, rather than face the embarrassment of being fired.

If they wanted to fight this, they should have stuck around, let the company fire them, then bring a court case. The way they've done it only makes it easier for companies to continue this.

Of course, that's a good thing if it gets people to quit smoking. In case you didn't know, smoking kills you! And when you go and fuck your body for 30 years, don't expect my tax dollars to support your medical care, you self-abusive leech.

p

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Anarcho-Goth]

They deserve to be fired....

out of a cannon....

into the sun.

(I'm not going to bother spell checking this comment.)
(It will probably be funnier if I misspelled cannon.)
(or have I been listening to to much Bach lately?)

Interesting link btw.
I get pretty sick of smokers, but yea, what you do at home is your own business.

your fired!

[Anonymous Coward]

i will now read the names of the people who are now fired due to inappropriate blogging in alphabetical order:

Simpson, Homer J.

That is all.

The little (C) at the bottom of the page...

[panth0r]

They put a little (c) at the bottom of their page... that means they own you and your thoughts...

Re:The little (C) at the bottom of the page...

[TheRaven64]

(c) has no legal meaning. ©, on the other hand, does. It still needs to be part of a copyright notice, however.

Re:The little (C) at the bottom of the page...

[Anonymous Coward]

(C) is accepted as legal meaning as part of a copyright notice, if no markup is used on the rest of the content.

As long as computer use policies are spelled out

[Shnizzzle]

and federally regulated break time is given, an employer can restrict whatever non-workrelated activities they wish. Especially those carried about using company equipment.

Use a pseudonym, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

In the time-tested tradition of writers who tackle risky topics - use a pseudonym. By the way, what are some of the ways to set up a reasonably anonymous blog?

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[Spy der Mann]

What about those who post pics?

This reminds me. Is it that people have become more rebel towards their companies, or this whole business-blog has only brought to light a serious problem inside all companies?

Like they've become dehumanizing?

Companies are supposed to do a service or sell goods for the country - in exchange for money. If their employees are treated badly, doesn't this mean that we're going back regarding workers rights?

Aside from that, companies need to make explicit rules regarding blogging.

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[multipartmixed]

You could always use the anonymization service at anon.penet.fi.

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

(not likely to be posting again, so I've not created an account... Not cowardly, just lazy)

Pseudonyms won't neccesarily keep you safe... The case of joe Gordon, who was fired for his blog, shows this- he never referred to the company he worked for by name until after he was dismissed, and they're still claiming he brought the company into disrepute...

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies are supposed to do a service or sell goods for the country - in exchange for money. If their employees are treated badly, doesn't this mean that we're going back regarding workers rights?

The only workers that have rights are those that have worked to get their right recongized and protected. Quite a few people on Slashdot have a proclavity to bash unions and union workers. However, if you look back at the late 19th and early 20th century and see what they had to go through to get the protections they enjoy, the words "lazy and stupid" really don't apply.

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[geoffspear]

If you think business has just become dehumanizing in the past few years, you should read Marx. He was taking about business being dehumanizing long before you or your corporate masters were even born.

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

freenet:) (don't expect anyone but the other floggers to read it though..)

Re:Use a pseudonym, stupid

[westlake]

In the time-tested tradition of writers who tackle risky topics - use a pseudonym.

Theme, style, content, all point to authorship.
Bloggers can become careless about seemingly insignificant details only a handful of people would know.
Chances are good, the post that gets you fired won't be the first one that made the rounds at work and pissed off your boss.

The company should own things that concern them

[chris09876]

People should really treat blogs just like anything that they would say in public. Most companies have IP agreements, or nondisclosure agreements. If an employee posts something that violates that agreement, then the company can ask them to take it down. People have a right to talk about their personal lives, but when you work for someone else, you usually have to agree not to disclose private information about them. Blogs are just a natural extension of that rule.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[robbo]

People should really treat blogs just like anything that they would say in public.

Trouble is, many people forget what 'in public' really means. It doesn't mean grousing about your job to a small group of friends. When you complain about management on your blog, you might as well have called a press conference, made your comments and had it play on CNN. Every night. Forever. Sooner or later the boss is going to catch wind. And that's when it gets tricky-- you haven't broken any NDA's, you're just advertising your dissatisfaction with your employer. That's probably enough reason for them to express their dissatisfaction with your job performance...

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[Threni]

> People should really treat blogs just like anything that they would say in
> public. Most companies have IP agreements, or nondisclosure agreements. If an
> employee posts something that violates that agreement, then the company can ask
> them to take it down. People have a right to talk about their personal lives,
> but when you work for someone else, you usually have to agree not to disclose
> private information about them. Blogs are just a natural extension of that
> rule.

And if you work for a company which is trying to make a deal with a supplier, and you post something on your blog about how bad your company is at support over the weekend, and it gets to the supplier, and they choose another company instead of yours, costing your company millions, you think they should just say `hey, it's a price well worth paying for free speech`?

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[NamShubCMX]

`hey, it's a price well worth paying for free speech`? Yes.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[PsiPsiStar]

I don't see what you're arguing with. The grandparent post isn't disagreeing with what you said.

He said people should be free to talk about their personal lives. i.e. I had one coworker who had several boyfriends and her very religious boss found out about it. He fired her. There were other reasons too, but that was kindof the straw that broke the camel's back.

Thing was, we did it from keystroke logs on her comp at work (legally obtained)

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[Vellmont]

Thing was, we did it from keystroke logs on her comp at work (legally obtained)


Monitoring someones personal life through keystroke logging? That's probbably legal, but really falls into the arena of scumbag behaviour.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[Macadamizer]

You don't have free speech rights at work, though -- unless you work for the government.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[PsiPsiStar]

We were required to report on her activities at work. She spent all her time chatting instead of working. I was against including any of the personal information, but my boss wasn't (they outsourced their tech dept. to our company.)

She really didn't keep her personal life that personal anyways. She'd offered to buy sex toys for other office workers, etc.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[PsiPsiStar]

To clarifiy things just a bit, we weren't monitoring someone's personal life, we were monitoring their work behavior for the purpose of covering our own asses in case they decided to sue for wrongful termination.The person in question was both a woman and a minority. She was being paid $70,000 yearly and producing nothing whatsoever. My boss, incidentally, was also a woman with more of a view to policing people's personal lives than I agreed with.

I understood the need to document the employee's failures in order to help our client cover their asses in case the woman decided to go legal. I was in favor of giving the boss of the company we were working for a less detailed review of her activities, but I wasn't the man in charge.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[Threni]

> If you dislike Doonesbury, you'll hate Vonnegut (from www.doonesbury.com)

If you're talking about the author Kurt Vonnegut then that statement is incorrect.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[PsiPsiStar]

The comment refers to Kurt Vonnegut, but the comment wasn't mine.

I take it you hate Doonesbury and like Vonnegut?

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[Threni]

I wouldn't say hate. I think it's formulaic and tedious - there's something smug and annoying about the final cel of each strip. Vonnegut is great, though.

No problemo

[nizo]

This is why I post all controversial postings as nizoLLC, a limited liability corporation created just for this purpose.

Re:No problemo

[Rude Turnip]

Hopefully, you're not located in New York, where single member LLCs don't count for anything.

Re:No problemo

[Sparr0]

He is, but his LLC has two members, the second being another LLC having two members, himself and a third LLC having two members, himself and ...

Re:No problemo

[iamwahoo2]

Also, can a non-profit also be an LLC?

Re:No problemo

[Rude Turnip]

I don't know, as I'm not an accountant or lawyer. My dad's social club is a non-profit corporation, and that's the extent of my knowledge on non-profits.

Personal Websites

[SteveX]

A blog is no different than a personal website; folks have had those since the dawn of the web.

Read your employment agreement; if you're still not sure talk to your HR folks. Better safe than sorry.

Re:Personal Websites

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn those companies who want to decide who should work for them! They should be forced to hire and employe people no matter how incompetent, lazy, worthless, annoying, whatever, they are! Where are unions when you really need them to keep people working in spite of all that.

Re:Personal Websites

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn you are a moron...

I Hearby Relinquish Any Claim

[ackthpt]

...to anything I've had to say over the years on /.

think of me as an open source

The opinions expressed in this post...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do not reflect the viewpoints of the company I don't work for

-A Coward

Modern employment

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern employment is intellectual slavery.

Blog anonymously and with a healthy dose of paranoia.

Re:Modern employment

[ackthpt]

Modern employment is intellectual slavery.

As opposed to what? Employement in the pre-union days of the early 20th century, where workers were little more than chattel and their minds didn't matter? Orgainization was seen as a step towards communism and fought hard and bloody. Now you just post anonymously about how your thoughts aren't your own.

Blog anonymously and with a healthy dose of paranoia.

No, cheapskate, hire a lawyer to advise you on protecting any ideas of your own which you think may be of significant value. If you've come up with a zinger which may make your fortune, you don't have to stay with your employer and bitch about it, go take a risk on your own and leave the job.

Re:Modern employment

[shredluc]

No, cheapskate, hire a lawyer to advise you on protecting any ideas of your own which you think may be of significant value.

Funny how we have to contribute to capitalism, to hire somebody who doesn't konw what they are talking about anyway, to protect something that is mine in the first place and still end up being called a cheapskate.

Re:Modern employment

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to what? Employement in the pre-union days of the early 20th century, where workers were little more than chattel and their minds didn't matter?

Are you contending the notion of slavery, the type(s) or a definition of modern.

Orgainization was seen as a step towards communism and fought hard and bloody.

Fighting for a new master, or no master?

Are you suggesting that such a fight is needed/required, will face the similar resistance and costs?

Now you just post anonymously about how your thoughts aren't your own.

Are you attempting a personal slight or commenting on the ease, and self-fulfilling futality of such a minor use of a potentially powerful tool?

"Blog anonymously and with a healthy dose of paranoia."

No, cheapskate, hire a lawyer to advise you on protecting any ideas of your own which you think may be of significant value. If you've come up with a zinger which may make your fortune, you don't have to stay with your employer and bitch about it, go take a risk on your own and leave the job.

It appears you have lept from blogging, or to you hold it in such a high regard?

Simple answer to copyright problems

[Ckwop]

Get your on domain and blog from there. That's what I do. It's then your fault if your journal disappears from the net..

You will never see problems like what LiveJournal experienced and you don't have to worry about a the blogging company going into administration. ( I think we'll see a few of these soon )

For employee blogs, treat like you would your e-mail except that you should expect everyone in your company can read the blog.. Security through obsecurity is no security at all.

Simon.

The problem you're speaking about...

[Sheetrock]

Is greater than what you say on a weblog. It's about the ability for an organization you work for (or attend as a student) being increasingly able to dictate your behavior and lifestyle outside of the workplace.

We've been on a fairly steady decline since they found out they can make employees go through demeaning tests for insurance purposes and are currently at the point where companies are trying to kick smokers out. Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them, conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

You mean like the Dutch East India Company?

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to get money from somebody shouldn't they be allowed to tell you the conditions under which they will give you the money?

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Xzzy]

I know it's a wildly unpopular concept with a lot of the tech crowd, but that's the sort of thing that unions were created to prevent. You think EA would be raping it's employees if it's workers were unionized?

Not a fan of unions myself, but history suggests it'll get results.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[PsiPsiStar]

I don't mind, as long as employers are upfront about it when they hire you. They should have the right to set the terms of your employment.

Springing stuff on you suddenly after you're employed is a different matter entirely.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Deanasc]

There were multinational companies around when our founding fathers wrote the bill of rights. One big thorn in the colonists sides was the British East India Company. They were a big part of why we rebelled against the crown. The trouble isn't that Franklin et al. didn't try to protect us agains corporations run amok but that the courts misinterpreted the intent of the constitution and allowed big business to run unchecked.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Sparr0]

if EA's employees unionized I imagine they would find themselves looking for new jobs very quickly as their positions were outsourced.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[santos_douglas]

They're not trying, they've succeeded:

Workers told 'no smoking,' even if it's at home.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[diamondsw]

While I don't disagree with your points, let's refrain from putting words in the Founding Fathers' mouths. It's bad enough when we ignore what they actually did say.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[quanticle]

I don't mind, as long as employers are upfront about it when they hire you. They should have the right to set the terms of your employment.

The only thing is that most employment agreements are like the EULAs that pop up before software installs, something you glance over but don't read in detail. This makes it easy to hide an unacceptable restriction in small print.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you don't understand what inalienable rights are.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inalienab le&r=67
"That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights."

The bill of rights didn't 'grant' any rights to us. Those rights are 'inalienable'. The bill of rights only served to declare recognition of those rights.

Exercising your rights might well provoke another party to exercise theirs; hence, getting fired for smoking. You'll notice that the fired employees were never denied their right to smoke. Actually, they are probably sitting at home exercising their right to smoke more so now then they had before.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Brandybuck]

You don't read your employment agreements before you sign them? Are you fscking nuts!

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Dun Malg]

I know it's a wildly unpopular concept with a lot of the tech crowd, but that's the sort of thing that unions were created to prevent. You think EA would be raping it's employees if it's workers were unionized? Not a fan of unions myself, but history suggests it'll get results.

Unfortunately, history also suggests that the results it'l get will be unemployment. It's ridiculously hard to get people to unionize over small crap like this. Historically, the most successful unionizations happened when there were serious health and safety issues. It's a lot easier to unionize (for example) mine workers and electricians when hundreds of your fellow workers are dying for lack of safety considerations. Unionization over lack of blog freedom is gonna be a really tough sell.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Tim C]

That's true, but it doesn't make it right. "Work until you're ready to drop from exhaustion or we'll fire you" doesn't sound like a very good deal to me...

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

if EA's employees unionized I imagine they would find themselves looking for new jobs very quickly as their positions were outsourced.

How do you think EA would handle the sudden 3+ month delay in all their software projects?

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[westlake]

there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them, conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

The colonial experience is all about "multinational" corporations. How do you think trade and settlement were organized and funded in those early days? The Hudson's Bay Company, founded in 1670, is still a going concern.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[PsiPsiStar]

Yeah, I don't like shrinkware either. The stuff should be illegal. EULAs aren't really what I had in mind when I said 'up front.' I've tried to return software because I didn't agree with the EULA before, but they wouldn't do it. I even contacted the company directly, but still no dice. I just kept a record of the whole thing in case anything ever came up. (The software was Flash, bought at the bookstore with an educational discount. When I got home I got the notice that the program could not be used for commercial purposes, which is what i needed it for. No warning about that prior to purchase.)

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Sparr0]

The same way they handle the 6+ month delays in ALL their projects :-p

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[quanticle]

I can actually see that making sense for software which doesn't need the actual CD to run. If the bookstore allowed returns on opened software, what's to prevent you from taking the software home, installing it and returning it for a refund, allowing you to essentially get the software for free?

It sucks that the EULA didn't allow you do what you needed to do, but you also have to look at this from the bookstore's perspective as well.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[PsiPsiStar]

Supposedly, if I don't agree with the shrinkwrap I'm supposed to be able to return the product.
That was going to be the law under UCITA (an otherwise horrid peice of legislation which, I believe and hope, has been rewritten before being passed.)

I understand why the bookstore did what they did, but they and the company still had an obligation and I contacted the company directly. If the company can't fufill their obligations, they should put the contracts on the outside of the wrapping, which is what they should have done in the first place. Assuming that a customer agrees to a contract that they never saw and allowing them no way to back out once they've made the purchase is just plain wrong. I mean, I know most folks don't read the damn things, but still, it violates the whole concept of "consent"...

At the least, I needed to document my disagreement with the EULA's "you cannot use this version of the software for commercial purposes" clause just in case they had some way to come after one of my clients because for using the output of supposedly non-commercial software for commercial purposes. Unlikely, but I didn't want to put my clients at risk.

And I'd paid for the software, so I was damn well going to use it for what I intended.

Re:I am troubled.

[Shnizzzle]

It's the internet, you can tell us how you really feel. No need to sugarcoat things.

Freedom of Expression

[3StrangeAllies]

I guess taht's what happens when you make the 1st Amendment only opposable to the Governments and not private individuals / corporations...
Anyone read C. Edwin Baker's Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech ? Pretty interesting on the topic of free speech regulation to protect the speech from this type of pressures...

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Freedom of Speech. a human rights should always be a higher legal principle, which should not be allowed to be over ruled by lower level legal princip;es, such as corporate Non-discolusure Agreements.
In fact, corporate NDA's should be illegal, because they are in violation of human rights for Freedom of Speech.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[ajakk]

So why shouldn't I be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts my own speech? Should I not be allowed that freedom?

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, though, is that the Constitution justifies the role of Government to enforce the laws on individual, real people, including the basis for "expression" crimes.

What would happen if Microsoft (through an official PR piece) called out some famous or unfamous person for being another stupid Jewboy, or some other hot-button description? It's not technically libelous or slanderous (one is either Jewish or not, but what does it really have to do with anything?), but it is, or should be, unacceptable.

Oh, but they can call out Linux users as "communists", and open source software as "anti-capitalistic"... But should we not call Microsoft a corporate socialist also?

Hmm...

It's a double-plus good day today. And I finally got my ticket for Room 109.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[3StrangeAllies]

The main problem regarding contracts is that their whole theorization stands on the equality of the bargain power, which does NOT exist when you look at an employee/employer relationship.
Besides, the first famous case of freedom of speech reduction occured when Micro$oft fired someone who took pix of G5's @ MS HQ and posted them on his personnal blog... There was no contract there, exept the hiring contract that, I suppose, didn't not mention a critical and ironical vision of the corporation.
The question to be asked is where to draw the line between freedom of speech, which can even help a corp. to progress, and deference to one's employer. Somehow, I cannot help but being pessimistic about the issue.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "unalienable right" do you not understand?

Re:Freedom of Expression

[ajakk]

And which unalienable right are you talking about. The three that were expressly mentioned in the Declaration of Indenpendance are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I am talking about the unalienable right of liberty, namely the liberty to contract as I please.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[3StrangeAllies]

There is no such thing as "Unalienable rights" (and mind you, I'm French, and we usually believe in Natural rights). The only problem is that, and globalisation teaches us the hard way, there no single universal agreement on what is and what is not unalienable. It all depends on a particular groups history and culture.
The closest thing would be "concepts generally admitted by civilized nations" ("civilized" meaning "non despotic system").
Even if I cherrish Freedom of Expression, I can understand that, on some corporations' webspace, it would be plainly rude to spit in the soup they're serving on their very own premices. So, contracts are a good way, but not the absolute remedy -- one should be allowed to express oneself elsewhere on the same topics.
Just like any general and absolute restrictions on speech are dangerous, a general and absolute freedom of speech without any duty in return is just absurd.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[ajakk]

The main problem regarding contracts is that their whole theorization stands on the equality of the bargain power, which does NOT exist when you look at an employee/employer relationship.
That is not true. Actors in contractual situations are almost never have "equality in bargaining power." My company can choose to use one of many different suppliers for printer paper. Because of that, we can force our supplier to give us very good rates on the paper that we buy. There is no equality between us and the supplier. That doesn't mean that the contract is in any way invalid or unfair.
WRT to the Microsoft incident, I don't see any problems with Microsoft firing him as long as it did not violate anything in his employment agreement. I would be firied quicker than a boston butt at a barbeque competition if I posted pictures of where I work on the Internet. I don't have anything wrong with that. Now, if Microsoft didn't have a provision in his hiring contract about him being an at-will employee or restricting him on what information he could post, then too bad for them.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[CGP314]

So why shouldn't I be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts my own speech? Should I not be allowed that freedom?

For the same reason you shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract that makes you a slave.


-Colin

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Qzukk]

So why shouldn't I be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts my own speech? Should I not be allowed that freedom?

When was the last time you personally knew what exactly it was you were signing away? Do you retain a laywer to translate all your contracts for you? Did the lawyer really know what it said? Should companies be permitted to penalize people who cannot afford a lawyer by requiring employees to sign contracts that are designed to be incomprehensible without years of training?

I suspect that a vast majority of the work force in the united states signed contracts that they don't even have a chance of understanding, with terms that could possibly be entirely illegal but would require the employee's money to combat if the company chose to enforce them (such as vaguely worded post-employment non-compete clauses).

And that should be illegal.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[3StrangeAllies]

Contracts in a free-market economy are different when you look on the one hand at suppliers of good, competiting for better services, better prices or what not and, on the other hand, at people trying to get a job.
I personnaly think that work conditions cannot be negociated anymore, considering the work market, and that free speech should be protected, even inside a corp.
Re. the Kro$oft employee, all he did was sendign a picture of G5s being delivered @ Redmont HQ, not slandering Bill Gate for whatever reasons. It was both funny and informative, mostly harmless as well. It shows the absence of control on any corp. behavior and their powerful, unrestrained ability to censor and control their employees thoughts. Had the former employee been unhappy or upset about MS, or a strong Linux advocate, he had no reason to work there. But he was, which showed at least some commitment to the corp. Firing him for a smart-ass comment in his private area, even accessible to the public, was just an abuse of power, that's all...

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Chrontius]

Now we get into the issues of marginal costs to society should the majority of people enter similar agreements, I believe.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Oligonicella]

You may find it an abuse of power against a harmless incident. I may find the employee's actions foolish considering where he/she worked. The real point is, was the firing illegal?

Re:Freedom of Expression

[aussersterne]

Because it doesn't just affect you. Every right you sign away that is *profitable* to a company is likely to result in *rewards* (i.e. wages, benefits, persk) being offered to employees who are willing to sign that right away. This affects everyone else in the labor pool, not just you.

Before you know it, there is an *economy* of employees all willing to sign away more and more rights in order to remain employed; then, it's no longer a matter of choice. We're already getting to that point... want to work? Be willing to sign an NDA. It's not too long until it's:

Want to work? Be willing to subject yourself to speech regulation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Or we'll hire one of those others, who is willing.

Want to work? Be willing to get plastic surgery so that you fit in to our "Most Beautiful Employees Core" value statement. Or we'll hire one of those others, who is willing.

Want to work? Be willing to wear the clothes that we dictate to you, on the job or off, in order to advertise for our marketing partners. Or we'll hire one of those others, who is willing.

Want to work? Be willing to work 10, 12, 14, even 16 hours a day. Or we'll hire one of those others, who is willing.

Oh wait, that last one already happened. It's why we now have federal regs about hours and overtime, etc... The same reason we have laws about child labor, slavery, etc.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[jck2000]

By the same token, why shouldn't you be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts your ability to vote, or commits you to vote for one candidate or party?

The functioning of the political process is dependent on the free expression of one's views, whether in speech or in the voting booth. Put another way, our political process presumes participants who are free to express their views. While it may not matter whether one individual agrees to silence himself, at a societal level, it can change the nature of the political process.

Also, such conditions of employment are in a sense the equivalent of "adhesion contracts" -- provisions that are (apparently) minor portions of a larger contract but that are overlooked or misvalued by the counterparty to the contract so that they arguably are not bargained for.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Oligonicella]

Bullshit. Many contracts make certain public actions fireable offenses. Being fired from a job does not under any circumstances bear a resemblance to slavery. Perhaps you equate self-control over one's speech equivalent to being whipped, sold, or killed outright?

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Oligonicella]

"(such as vaguely worded post-employment non-compete clauses)"

Here in Missouri, they are illegal. I've laughed at them and told them they were unenforcable as I signed them.
As for the rest of the contracts, yes I do read them. And, it's not that friggin' hard to do.
The excuse that "I didn't know it was in the contract" typically is, and should be, laughed out of court.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about liberty as well. To be able to sign away your liberty would be to alienate your liberty. Likewise to be unable.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the rest of the contracts, yes I do read them. And, it's not that friggin' hard to do.

My first job offer had a contract saying that "all IP developed on company time" belonged to the company, which was all fine and good until in a different part of the contract they specified that "company time" can extend 24/7 since I would have been on call. My innate cynicism was the only reason I caught that, I wonder how many other people or lawyers would have made the connection. While I'm sure not every company is "out to get us", the ones that are should face penalties.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

> For the same reason you shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract that makes you a slave.

you can't?
Someone had better tell the recording industry.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts in a free-market economy are different when you look on the one hand at suppliers of good, competiting for better services, better prices or what not and, on the other hand, at people trying to get a job.

I can certainly see how you would hope so, but a more common veiw is that these are pretty much the same. You are a potenital supplier of some amount of labor of some qualities and it is up to you to find a buyer (employer) you can negotiate a acceptable deal with. You can attempt to improve your product, take it to (percieved) better markets or even offer larger quanities to swing the deal and ask for whatever it is that makes it work for you (be it flexible hours, more money or a private office).

Further, even after you remove the unemployable for consideration in the labor pool, in a purely economic veiw, a certain ammount of unemployment is desirable to allow for a more efficient movement of labor resources as market conditions change.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[Lehk228]

in that situation you just present a bill to your employer for 2x your current total wages since employment, they want claim on your thoughts 24/7 they can pay you 24/7.

Blogs should not be an exception

[arhar]

What's the difference between a blog and another personal website? You should be able to say whatever you want on it ...

Re:Blogs should not be an exception

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you work for Pepsi and blog about how Coca Cola is better because they don't have some secret ingredient you have, etc. Wouldn't you fire someone who would put your business at risk?

Re:Blogs should not be an exception

[arhar]

Oh, of course I would fire somebody like that. But he should be still free to say whatever they want, but be wary of consequences, just like it works IRL.

It depends.

[BlueThunderArmy]

I would think who owns the content would depend on some very simple criteria, but ones which often lead to legal battles.

If an employee blogs for or as a representative of her company, the company owns the material.

If an employee blogs on her own time, and on matters unrelated to the company, the author owns the material.

If an employee blogs on her own time, but on matters related to the company and identifying herself with the company, she owns the material but will likely face consequences.

Re:It depends.

[UWC]

Agreed. That's the only logical and fair categorization of ownership and liability I can think of. As others have pointed out, though, blogs should not be singled out. One could do the same thing on a personal web site, in physical media, or anywhere else. That this is arising as a blog problem seems to stem from two main factors:

1) easy-to-use blogging services mean that there is no longer any significant technical hurdle to making your words viewable worldwide

2) people seem to have a false sense of security or invulnerability, especially when just adding your own words to a sea already overrun with others. The problem there is that if one knows what they're looking for, a simple URL leads straight to the potentially incriminating content.

Re:It depends.

[Fastolfe]

Further, all of this depends on what the employment contract looks like. There are likely clauses within it that may allow the company to claim ownership of content described by one or both of your last two statements.

Re:It depends.

[Oligonicella]

Not really. A company has no claim, regardless of contract, to personal accomplishments done on own time. This has been won in court time and again. It's when the individual uses information obtained through company exposure that they face troubles.

Clauses not withstanding. Regardless of what is put in a contract, the state laws are what counts, not the companies interest.

Re:It depends.

[halcyon1234]

If an employee blogs on her own time, but on matters related to the company and identifying herself with the company, she owns the material but will likely face consequences.

This is total BS. Girls don't know how to use the Internet!

And since when are they allowed to work?

Re:It depends.

[Fastolfe]

State laws vary from state to state.

I have heard of cases (horror stories) of employers successfully asserting ownership of things that an employee did entirely on personal time, entirely using personal resources, doing something that was not related to his job. It all depends on what's in your contract (as I noted previously), subject to the laws of your region (as you note).

Re:It depends.

[gfreeman]

You missed one:

If an employee blogs during company time, and on matters unrelated to the company, the company owns the material.

Probably. YMMV. Check your contract, but in most instances this would be the case.

Re:As long as computer use policies are spelled ou

[garcia]

Problem is that they usually aren't spelled out and you just have to use common sense. Sadly most people don't have common sense and certainly don't think of the consequences of their actions until it's too late.

I wouldn't blog

[WormholeFiend]

on my employer's weblog anymore than I would post my opinion on my employer's bulletin boards.

I think that if you want to avoid being quoted as saying stuff, or avoid having someone steal your ideas, then maybe you should choose another medium.

Re:I wouldn't blog

[DeadVulcan]

if you want to avoid being quoted as saying stuff, or avoid having someone steal your ideas, then maybe you should choose another medium.

Blogs can amplify these kinds of problems, but they don't originate them. Office politics has been around ever since people have been working in offices.

Being afraid of someone stealing your ideas seems, to me, to indicate a poisoned corporate culture, not anything particular about blogs. Besides, wouldn't a blog tend to help, in that you'd have a dated record of you expressing your ideas?

Stay anonymous

[Ruzty]

I know it doesn't serve to fluff the author's ego or provide as much legitimacy, but if you MUST say something controversial then BLOG it anonymously.

My primary BLOG has no personally identifiable information in it. I can say what I want as long as it's not slanderous or libelous. Of course, I do it as an outlet for personal expression and not to gain or keep readership. I mostly write reviews of restaurants I eat at...

More importantly....

[filtur]

Who owns my slashdot posts? Soviet Russia?

Re:More importantly....

[ClippyHater]

Look at the bottom of the page:

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSTG.

Re:More importantly....

[melandy]

I think that "All your base..." guy called dibs.

Re:More importantly....

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowboy Neal, of course.

Re:I am troubled.

[DrEldarion]

Oh come on, don't hold back on us. How do you really feel?

Thoughtcrimes

[Vandil X]

It's bad enough that you commit thoughtcrime.

Do you honestly expect the thought police to miss them when they are written out on a blog and available for anyone to see?

"Room 101!"

Common sense...

[I8TheWorm]

... ain't.

Common sense?

[digitalgimpus]

Here's been my observation:

1. Companies always have NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) when they have info they don't want others to have... if you sign it, respect it. It's that simple. We have all signed them before.

2. I never mention people/places unless I *know* it's safe. I never mention identifyable people, only the info they publically reveal (and a link to their blog). It's just common respect.

3. Never mention who I am working for, or what I'm doing, unless I am positive it doesn't violate the rules of #1, and #2. Ever, no exceptions.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but that's been my policy for ages.

IMHO it's just common sense. Just because you don't sign your real name to your blog doesn't mean you don't need to abide by your NDA.

Re:Common sense?

[RocketRainbow]

Just because you don't sign your name, doesn't mean it's anonymous. If you host it at your house you may find cranky people knocking on your door. Less dramatically, if you identify what city you live in, where you work, then fill in a few personal details, such as your football team, religion, sex, and what movie you went to last night, it gets pretty easy to guess who you are. If you tell your friends about your "anonymous" blog, you may also find your anonymity dripping away amongst friends.

I agree with digitalgimpus: don't mention places and people and expect to stay anonymous. You don't have to sign NDAs, so if you reach an agreement, keep it! It's just basic honour and self-respect.

If you want to mention work and what it's like, you may want to consider your goal. Do you want to publicly announce your dissatisfaction, or just vent a bit? Particularly at risk are people who work as contractors! It's not so much that you shouldn't talk about your own work, but you do your employer a grave disservice if comments about clients can be traced back to you.

Re:I am troubled.

[shigelojoe]

Methinks you're holding something back. Now, tell us how you really feel. ;)

Will I have to buy all my son's movies again?

[borwells]

My spoiled son has a huge collection of DVD movies. He also has a sizeable collection of VHS movies that he takes to Grandma's when I'm out of town. And another collection of movies for his VideoNow POS movie player.

Am I going to have to buy all of these again so he can watch them on the new PSP? Or is Sony going to give me some way to rip them and write them to UMD?

Re:Will I have to buy all my son's movies again?

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Ummmm...yeah, check where you post stuff. I think that you want this link, http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/03/ 159221&from=rss

Re:Will I have to buy all my son's movies again?

[Spy der Mann]

That's what happens when you open various news on different windows / tabs. You end up posting on the wrong thread :-P

What is so special about blogs?

[GillBates0]

I think a lot of questions are being asked about blogs because of all the publicty they've been getting lately.

I don't see how they're any different from personal websites, which have been around for a while. I would think that you would be bound by the agreement with which the website or blog is hosted. For example, if the webpage exists on Geocities, you are bound by their Terms of Service, which among other things states:

7. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO GEOCITIES
Yahoo does not claim ownership of the Content you place on your Yahoo GeoCities Site. By submitting Content to Yahoo for inclusion on your Yahoo GeoCities Site, you grant Yahoo the world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your Yahoo GeoCities Site on Yahoo's Internet properties.

But that's just Yahoo's TOS, which would obviously differ from company to company.

Blogs work (or atleast work) the same way, with you being bound by the TOS of blogspot or blogger, or any other service.

The main difference I see between personal websites and blogs, is that a majority of blogs seem to be hosted on popular websites offering blogging services like blogspot, blogger, etc. On the other hand, a significant percent of personal websites seem to be hosted on personal machines/servers.

If a blog (or webpage) is hosted on your employer or school's server, then it is bound by their TOS, like it should be.

I really don't see any major difference between the two...nobody's stopping people from putting up their own machines to host their blog. They should be fine as long as they operate independently of their employer/school or any webhosting service. Otherwise tough luck.

and the literate readership...

[claussenvenable]

>> would probably prefer to not risk their jobs."

would probably prefer the /. editors not to split their infinitives...

Re:and the literate readership...

[teknomage1]

Bah, your latinate grammar is obsolete. Also their, there, and they're have now been replaced by the l33t-speak friendly "tehr."

Re:and the literate readership...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the truly literate readership would probably prefer the /. grammarian posers would stop harping on obsolete 13th Century grammatical rules based on the inherent structural inflexibility of Latin. Which has, incidentally, been discredited by every reputable expert on modern English usage and style.

If you write it - you own it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you write it - you own it. Very simple.

My server, my time, my opinion/experiences

[slam smith]

I don't see where it is any of there business what I write on my weblog

As the subject says. I keep it strictly seperate from work. I don't believe I ever mentioned my employer's name on it. As long as I'm honoring my confidentiality agreement with my employer, I think they need to mind their own business.

I'm not too worried anyways. My regular readership is under 10 people :-). I write it as much for enjoyment as any other reason.

Weblog - Blog - Yours - Theirs - Mine

[IamTheExpert]

Blog with multiple websites.
When you are a billionaire, you can call anybody you want a moron.
http://www.doyousnap.com/portal/albums/23/5.aspx/
I wonder what he thinks of Orin Hatch?
http://www.doyousnap.com/portal/albums/23/6.aspx/

You could always, um, not blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if people would just learn that the rest of the world isn't interested in their incessent prattle, then this wouldn't be a problem.

Re:You could always, um, not blog

[cbr2702]

"Incessent prattle" is bothersome only if you have to listen to it. In the case of blogs you don't.

Re:If you are a billionaire, you own it! ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially like this entry.

If it is done on company time

[ShatteredDream]

Then doesn't it belong to the employer?

Seriously, why do we need something like a blogger's "bill of rights?" If you do something on your employer's time that isn't related to your job, then you should consider yourself lucky that either your employer doesn't know or care. You could lose your job for blogging at work, unless maybe your blog is promoting the company's products and services and some manager thinks that is just good free advertisement.

The woman who proposed that blogger's bill of rights got fired because she posted on her blog pictures that could be offensive to some of her employer's customers and let people know where she worked. That's just about one of the things that you DONT DO online. You just don't post comments that can be connected with your employer unless your employer has given you the green light to do so.

Re:If it is done on company time

[Quasar1999]

sweet... so if I engage in 'adult activity' at work, and 9 months later a kid appears... since I did it on company time, it's the company's kid? AWESOME! :D

Re:If it is done on company time

[Rude Turnip]

"Then doesn't it belong to the employer?"

Here's another way to look at this issue. If I buy something online (ie a book, vacuum cleaner, whatever) at work, does it automatically become the property of the employer?

Re:If it is done on company time

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another way to look at this issue. If I buy something online (ie a book, vacuum cleaner, whatever) at work, does it automatically become the property of the employer?

Of course not... You skipped:
2. Their lawyers file papers against you.

As usual:
3. Profit!!!

Scott McNealy urged not to blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn. I was hoping to find out what Star Wars Character he'd be.

If government forced businesses...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to provide auto insurance and housing insurance they'd be concerned about your driving habits and your lifestyle at home as well. We will be seeing more of this nonsense.

remember the MS employee

[Anonymous Coward]

that put a photo of the truck unloading a couple of pallets of Macintosh G5 computers, he was soon after fired for posting that photo...

Re:I am troubled.

[RailGunner]

I am troubled. And offended. Deeply troubled and offended. This is very troubling, and quite offensive. I'm outraged. Deeply outraged. Outraged, troubled, and offended. Very much so. This is very troubling, quite offensive, and entirely outrageous.

Wow - who knew former Senator Tom Daschle posted to slashdot?

Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

People too stupid to use pseudonyms get what they deserve.

People who let their employers violate their civil liberties get what they deserve.

People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[RobotRunAmok]

People too stupid to use pseudonyms get what they deserve.

People who let their employers violate their civil liberties get what they deserve.

People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.

Actually, it's much more fundamental than that:

People so full of themselves that they post their diaries on the Web get what they deserve.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Better tuck in your shirt.

Your insecurity is showing.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[RobotRunAmok]

That's not my insecurity, but thanks for noticing.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

Great going buddy. Use Pseudonyms? Hide behind an "alter ego"? I thought the US got into Iraq so that people there DON'T have to do things like that anymore?

If you can't stand behind what you write with your own name, then maybe you shouldn't have written it in the first place.

IF on the other hand, you can't say anything anymore without fear of repercussion I suggest you call out a revolution and free the people again. Put the Second Ammendment to good use.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Oh. Maybe I misunderstood you.

It just seemed to me that your comment was crying out between the lines, "I feel small, and I resent extroverts."

Reading between the lines is an obscure art, however.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

First of all, my country doesn't have a second ammendment. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't how you spell "amendment."

Also, just for the record, all of the embarrassing crap I've written *is* linked to my proper name. I am shameless, and believe my ranting is defensible.

However, it's a bit simplistic to ignore the value of pseudonyms. Haven't you ever wanted to write about/get feedback on something you wouldn't want your mother to read? Or you wife?

Are *they* repressing institutions that require being answered with placard-waving, activist mission-statements and shouting? (Divorced and/or Mama's Boys don't bother answering that, you'll dent my theory.)

You sound like a teenager, you reactionary dander-pie. Drink a glass of lemonade and take a nap.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[RobotRunAmok]

It just seemed to me that your comment was crying out between the lines, "I feel small, and I resent extroverts."

Golly.

I've been called so-o-o-o-o-o many names, most of them on this board, but never, ever has it been implied I was an "introvert."

Thank you.

But to the matter at hand... all those teens and 20-somethings with their web-logs, nattering on and on about their pets, their roommates, their laptop and its operating system, what music they like and in what mood they are in while the listen to it, why they hate Bush and MTV, and which Buffy character their girlfriend most resembles... these niblets are extroverts ?

Wow. I never would have guessed.

See, in the old days, extroverts were typically entertaining. People stayed extroverted cuz they got encouraging feedback from those around them. When they ceased being entertaining (it happens, I'm told...), they would become a bit more guarded, the stupid jokes around the watercooler would become fewer. The problem, as I see it, with all this Cheezewhiz in the "blog-O-sphere" is that it is predominantly boring as hell, and everybody is too polite to tell these people to go off and pop bubblewrap someplace, please, anything, just do it off-line.

Which is not to say that all blogs suck; some are really quite good. Of course, those are written typically by professional journalists and authors. Funny how that worked out, eh?

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

First of all, my country doesn't have a second ammendment. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't how you spell "amendment."

Too bad for your country. Mine, btw, does not have english as an official language.

Also, just for the record, all of the embarrassing crap I've written *is* linked to my proper name. I am shameless, and believe my ranting is defensible.

Good for you, so why are you now all of the sudden tell everybody to hide their identity?

However, it's a bit simplistic to ignore the value of pseudonyms. Haven't you ever wanted to write about/get feedback on something you wouldn't want your mother to read? Or you wife?

- Mother: Dead.
- Wife: Have none.

If I had either I still wouldn't care. They either accept me for who I am or they don't. Unlike a Teenager I don't really need someone elses approval to be me.

Are *they* repressing institutions that require being answered with placard-waving, activist mission-statements and shouting? (Divorced and/or Mama's Boys don't bother answering that, you'll dent my theory.)

Who's shouting? What could *I* want to get feedback on that I don't want them to know about? If I HAVE to hide it from them, then I have way bigger problems.

You sound like a teenager, you reactionary dander-pie. Drink a glass of lemonade and take a nap.

And you sound like someone with anger managment issues. Take a Valium and deep breath.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

"Too bad for your country. Mine, btw, does not have english as an official language."

Nor as a first, clearly. I'm not sure what you mean here, but I was speaking in response to your using American freedoms as an example. It seemed ethnocentric, but if you're not American I'm at a bit of a loss of why you'd use that as your reference. If you are American and I've misunderstood you altogether, I suggest taking the cotton out of your mouth when you speak.

"Good for you, so why are you now all of the sudden tell everybody to hide their identity?"

You miss the point. It wasn't prescriptivism, it was a recommendation for common sense. IF someone is not safe to speak their mind, taking measures to avoid harassment is NOT equivalent to condoning that lack of freedom.

"If I had either I still wouldn't care. They either accept me for who I am or they don't. Unlike a Teenager I don't really need someone elses approval to be me."

So, because you feel no need to make use of a pseudonym, are you suggesting that others be barred from the same?

Your mother may be dead, but the mothers of lots of people are not. You are not married, so you're not really qualified to have any perspective there, fair enough. The point is that whether or not you have sufficient life experience to see the value in obfuscation, you must have enough sense to recognize that your own experiences shouldn't set a universal standard.

"And you sound like someone with anger managment issues. Take a Valium and deep breath."

If I sound angry to you, I suggest that your reading comprehension skills may be impaired. We're just having a little chat -- nice and friendly-like.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Oh, okay -- I follow you now. I thought you were reacting against the concept of public writing in general, but I understand now that you were reacting against the concept of public hackneyed drivel.

No arguments there. What sucks does suck, after all.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

Nor as a first, clearly. I'm not sure what you mean here, but I was speaking in response to your using American freedoms as an example. It seemed ethnocentric, but if you're not American I'm at a bit of a loss of why you'd use that as your reference. If you are American and I've misunderstood you altogether, I suggest taking the cotton out of your mouth when you speak.

I see you still haven't taken the Valium.

But to answer the question that was hidden somewhere in your diatribe about my missing ability to communicate with you: The reason I choose america was because this is what this is all about, how american companies treat their employees.

You miss the point. It wasn't prescriptivism, it was a recommendation for common sense. IF someone is not safe to speak their mind, taking measures to avoid harassment is NOT equivalent to condoning that lack of freedom.

Yes it is. If I just let things happen I am as guilty as when I would have done it myself.

You can't tell me that if you see someone drowning in a lake and just let it happen, you did not let him die?

So, because you feel no need to make use of a pseudonym, are you suggesting that others be barred from the same?

No, but I am opposing your attitude of: "Well, if you have a blog, better have it under a pseudonym, because that's the only smart thing to do." It is not. The smart thing to do is to make sure that people actually can say what they want to say (minus certain things like "Fire" in a crowded theater).

Either there is free speech and an open society or there is not. Hiding ones identity to say the things one wants to say is not a solution (yes, yes, there are certain circumstances in which using a Pseudonym should be used, there is ample proof of this in history, but when the majority has to resort to pen names then there is something clearly wrong, and it doesn't matter if it is because of the government or companies).

Your mother may be dead, but the mothers of lots of people are not. You are not married, so you're not really qualified to have any perspective there, fair enough.

Maybe not, but I am do have a pretty good idea how I want to live my life which things I value, and the term "brutally honest" would come to mind.

The point is that whether or not you have sufficient life experience to see the value in obfuscation, you must have enough sense to recognize that your own experiences shouldn't set a universal standard.

Well, if you look at my UID you'll realize that it has been around for a while (~1997 or so), so if you still think I am a teenager then I guess I must have gotten my account when I was at most 11.... So I guess one could argue I have been around the block a bit.

But here's a tip: google for my username, I pretty much use it for 99% of my public postings, and I am sure you can find out more about me, or just visit my website.

If I sound angry to you, I suggest that your reading comprehension skills may be impaired. We're just having a little chat -- nice and friendly-like.

Sure sure, just like you seem to read my age in my posting.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[dvdeug]

The problem, as I see it, with all this Cheezewhiz in the "blog-O-sphere" is that it is predominantly boring as hell, and everybody is too polite to tell these people to go off and pop bubblewrap someplace, please, anything, just do it off-line.

There's thousands of books in the "library" that are predominantly boring as hell; should we tell those authors to go off and do anything that's not published? If someone wants to write, and can find a way to publish their words, what buisness do you have to bitch about it? Don't read them if you don't want to.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[Anonymous Coward]

People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.

The irony is staggering.

AC

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

"The reason I choose america was because this is what this is all about, how american companies treat their employees."

Oh, I hadn't realized the focus was so narrow. Who decided that?

"Yes it is. If I just let things happen I am as guilty as when I would have done it myself."

Now that's simply reduced to the point of the asburd. How many things how you "let" happen today? I've heard there were some deaths your city today -- how DARE you!

"You can't tell me that if you see someone drowning in a lake and just let it happen, you did not let him die?"

Oh, sure. And if drive around with seat-belt on I shouldn't die, because I'm a perfect driver. Do you see the breakdown in logic? Events beyond your control are not your responsibility, but you'd be foolhardy to ignore the potential jeopardy. Similarly, if I advise others to buckle up I am not advocating treating the roads as derby.

Your example would suggest that if I tell people to wear seat-belts I am somehow "letting" car accidents happen, by refusing to accept responsibility personally for stopping car accidents from ever happening.

Your analogy is crocked, and it smells like stale mint.

"No, but I am opposing your attitude of: "Well, if you have a blog, better have it under a pseudonym, because that's the only smart thing to do."

My attitude is, "Well, if you blog about secrets and don't make any attempt to shield yourself from discovery while blogging in a blogger-hostile environment, you're doing yourself a disservice."

"Maybe not, but I am do have a pretty good idea how I want to live my life which things I value, and the term "brutally honest" would come to mind."

That may one of the funniest, most self-aggrandizing notions I've ever read here. Kudos, Arrogor -- Lord of the Fearless Knowers!

"Well, if you look at my UID you'll realize that it has been around But here's a tip: google for my username, I pretty much use it for 99% of my public postings, and I am sure you can find out more about me, or just visit my website."

Why would I want to know more about you? You sound like a bit of reactionary jackass.

I'm sorry I compared you to a teenager -- it's obviously a sensitive point. What I meant to say is, "Your arguments are emotional and fallacious -- kinda like an over-excited, big-headed teenager." So, it really should've been a SIMILE. Apologies.

I know you have the maturity to accept this olive branch with decorum and dignity. No doubt, your response will inspire us all.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Wow. You *almost* parsed that comment properly.

After such a good start (recognizing irony) you failed to understand it's direction (self-referential).

Keep workin' at it, champ.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

Oh, I hadn't realized the focus was so narrow. Who decided that?

Obviously you haven't read the FAQ

Now that's simply reduced to the point of the asburd. How many things how you "let" happen today? I've heard there were some deaths your city today -- how DARE you!

I see, generalisation only works for you arguments. How convinient.

Oh, sure. And if drive around with seat-belt on I shouldn't die, because I'm a perfect driver. Do you see the breakdown in logic? Events beyond your control are not your responsibility, but you'd be foolhardy to ignore the potential jeopardy. Similarly, if I advise others to buckle up I am not advocating treating the roads as derby.

The way society treats people (e.g. free speech) are not an "accident" they are a concerted effort.

Comparing using an alias to wearing a seatbelt in the car is a good breakdown of logic. Me writing something on the web in a "free" country (choose any flag you like) should not result in bodily harm. There should be no "accident" either.

Your example would suggest that if I tell people to wear seat-belts I am somehow "letting" car accidents happen, by refusing to accept responsibility personally for stopping car accidents from ever happening.

Accidents by definiton are random, non predetermined acts. The fireing of an employee, the harrassing and sueing of another person (or the beating up of the same) sounds not like an accident to me but rather like a concious act by individuals and organizations.

Your analogy is crocked, and it smells like stale mint.

Must be the peppermint schnapps you've been drinking.

My attitude is, "Well, if you blog about secrets and don't make any attempt to shield yourself from discovery while blogging in a blogger-hostile environment, you're doing yourself a disservice."

True, but this is not even about any secrets. If I breach a contract then I have to deal with the consequences and shouldn't whine. If I write about my life though (and that can include my work for most people) then this is something completly different.

As I wrote there are good reasons for people to use acronyms for example if they blow the whistle on their employer for damaging the environment or selling dangerous products, but beyond that, someone who has a personal blog, should not be required to hide their identity.

That may one of the funniest, most self-aggrandizing notions I've ever read here. Kudos, Arrogor -- Lord of the Fearless Knowers!

Geeze, since you moved in your old schoolhouse it seems you have found the bottle of wisdom. Did it by any chance taste and smell like peppermint schnapps?

Why would I want to know more about you? You sound like a bit of reactionary jackass.

Ah, so you start with the name calling and *I* am the Jackass.... Wow.... It seems to be true that artists easily crack under pressure..... That's sad. I am sure in time you will recover. I am sorry for all the pain you must be feeling while you release all your anger into your keyboard.

I'm sorry I compared you to a teenager -- it's obviously a sensitive point. What I meant to say is, "Your arguments are emotional and fallacious -- kinda like an over-excited, big-headed teenager." So, it really should've been a SIMILE. Apologies.

Either we have a severity one failure to communicate here or you really think your opinion and advice is the only one that counts.

Either way: Good for you!

I know you have the maturity to accept this olive branch with decorum and dignity. No doubt, your response will inspir

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[mdwh2]

I'm sure plenty of people would find most Slashdot comments "boring as hell", but you and I are evidently "so full of ourselves" that we continue to post here. Should people tell us to take this offline?

Also, do you have friends and if so do you discuss with them about what's happening in your lives? Why does this change when it's online? Why should you give a damn if your life isn't of interest to a complete stranger who chooses to find out about it?

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

I'll ignore a majority of your foolishness, so we can agree what we disagree on. "As I wrote there are good reasons for people to use acronyms for example if they blow the whistle on their employer for damaging the environment or selling dangerous products, but beyond that, someone who has a personal blog, SHOULD NOT be required to hide their identity." [ My Emphasis ] Shouldn't, but do. Face reality.

You can fight a dysfunctional system while at the same time protecting yourself from its worst damages.

"My, I must have truly hurt you, considering the dripping sarcasm and self righthousness on your behalf... How insecure must one be to be so outwardly aggressive to another poster on a message board like slashdot...."

I've been on the Internet since 1996, and I still marvel that fools think accusing their interloculators of their own crimes in argument will somehow vindicate them. It's a cute ploy, but it's old and transparent.

Have a nice day.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

Shouldn't, but do. Face reality.

And because it is that way we all have to live with it. No need (or reason) to change, is that what you are trying to imply with your "advice"?

You can fight a dysfunctional system while at the same time protecting yourself from its worst damages.

How much credibility does my writing have if I don't even stand by it?

I've been on the Internet since 1996, and I still marvel that fools think accusing their interloculators of their own crimes in argument will somehow vindicate them. It's a cute ploy, but it's old and transparent.

Wow, 1996? Impressive, I have only used my computer to connect to the internet since around 1991 (give or take a few months, I am not quite sure when CompuServe actually opened up the gateway), you know, before people spammed Newsgroups and before there was the World Wide Web and all that.... Ahh, the good old times.

Thanks for enlightenm me though about all the things I've missed in the last 14 years of using this communicatino medium.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

"And because it is that way we all have to live with it. No need (or reason) to change, is that what you are trying to imply with your "advice"?"

No. Your powers of inferrence are not operating at full capacity. You just make yourself sound silly when you ignore great chunks of the thread.

"How much credibility does my writing have if I don't even stand by it?"

Indeed -- tell that to the social and political critics who have used pseudonyms over the centuries. "Don't bother, fellas -- MKalus knows better!"

"Wow, 1996? Impressive, I have only used my computer to connect to the internet since around 1991..."

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You're basically just admitting that it's taken you more years to gain less wisdom. Good show. Keep acting like a newbie troll -- it's charming, and encourages open and frank discussion.

I love you.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

No. Your powers of inferrence are not operating at full capacity. You just make yourself sound silly when you ignore great chunks of the thread.

Maybe you can enlighten me what I omitted.

Indeed -- tell that to the social and political critics who have used pseudonyms over the centuries. "Don't bother, fellas -- MKalus knows better!"

Now you're the one omitting my writing. I made it pretty clear that there are good circumstances where writing a pseudonym makes sense, but for the average person to have to be that paranoid is just plain wrong. If you don't see that I feel sorry for you.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You're basically just admitting that it's taken you more years to gain less wisdom. Good show. Keep acting like a newbie troll -- it's charming, and encourages open and frank discussion.

Ah, and once again only the Burger has a right to put up the bar "I am on the net since 1997" if the other person is doing it better / for longer / has more experience then suddenly it doesn't matter and the other person is instead belittled... You, sir, are a true, shining example of small town Canada and the internet at large.

I love you.

My heart is bleeding for joy.

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

"Maybe you can enlighten me what I omitted."

Again? Sorry -- if you can't pick it up the first two times you forfeit your right to have it re-explained to you (at least as far as my patience is concerned).

"Now you're the one omitting my writing. I made it pretty clear that there are good circumstances where writing a pseudonym makes sense, but for the average person to have to be that paranoid is just plain wrong. If you don't see that I feel sorry for you."

When you contradict yourself I'm not ignoring anything you've written, I'm going by the last thing said for want of a more coherent anchor. Also, it is your insistence that you're right on top of the "just plain wrong" situation that I find so unappealing. It's arrogant.

"Ah, and once again only the Burger has a right to put up the bar "I am on the net since 1997"..."

Why do you think you're so clever when you fail to parse simple sentences so frequently? Once again, you've missed the point. I'd explain it to you, but my charity quota has been filled for the day. Maybe tomorrow.

You, sir, are exactly what makes Slashdot amusing. Good luck in all your future endeavours!

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[MKalus]

Again? Sorry -- if you can't pick it up the first two times you forfeit your right to have it re-explained to you (at least as far as my patience is concerned).

Blah blah blah. Good troll... buh buh buh.

When you contradict yourself I'm not ignoring anything you've written, I'm going by the last thing said for want of a more coherent anchor. Also, it is your insistence that you're right on top of the "just plain wrong" situation that I find so unappealing. It's arrogant.

Ah, I am the arrogant one, hold on, let me quote you something:

People too stupid to use pseudonyms get what they deserve.

People who let their employers violate their civil liberties get what they deserve.

People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.

'nuff said.

Why do you think you're so clever when you fail to parse simple sentences so frequently? Once again, you've missed the point. I'd explain it to you, but my charity quota has been filled for the day. Maybe tomorrow.

Maybe, just maybe, because what you consider a a "faultfree logic" is anything but, not to mention the fact that you seem to be very bad at handeling criticism, as this thread bears testament to.

You, sir, are exactly what makes Slashdot amusing. Good luck in all your future endeavours!

Mirror mirror on the wall......

Re:Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

You are a sad, strange little man -- and you have my pity.

Farewell!

Well Duh!

[PMuse]

This is all obvious, isn't it?

1. Anything you publish will be considered by people considering hiring you. Therefore, publish only what you would be proud of.

2. Companies expect that their employees will not disclose confidential company information. Doing so can get you disciplined or fired. Never mind whether they could get a court order stopping you -- your job will end long before anything like that happens.

3. Companies expect that their employees will publicly support the company, or at least not publicly embarrass it. Doing so can get you disciplined or fired.

4. Materials written on company time or hosted on company equipment may be the property of your employer.

None of this is new. The only thing blogs add to this picture is that more of us now have the opportunity to publish.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

I suspect that if you have to ask "Who owns my weblog content?", then the answer probably won't be what you want to hear.

Re:zerg

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are posts occasionally titled Zerg?

Re:zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Sometimes I'm replying to someone else's post, so I don't bother changing the subject?

Re:zerg

[Anonymous Coward]

But you were posting a new comment on the main page...

I don't get it. I just see a lot of posts with the subject 'zerg'

Re:zerg

[Lord Omlette]

I'm just not trying hard enough. :p

Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[sakusha]

I own my content, which is not a problem since I'm self-employed, and I copyright my content, which turned out to be incredibly important.
I learned a tough lesson in my early blogging days. I used a hosted blog, and I got into a business dispute with the asshole owner, resulting in him terminating my services but leaving my dead blog active. My old blog was highly rated, so they were deliberately leaving my old blog up to divert Google searches away from my new self-hosted blog. So I filed a DMCA complaint to force him to remove my old website, and I won. This was only possible because I had put a copyright notice on my old website.
Now I know better than to to let anyone else have control over my content.

Re:Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[arkanes]

So I filed a DMCA complaint to force him to remove my old website, and I won. This was only possible because I had put a copyright notice on my old website.

Your lawyer should have told you this, but anything you write in the US is automatically copyrighted, whether you publish the notice or not. Your DMCA notice would have worked regardless.

Re:Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[sakusha]

You don't need a lawyer to file DMCA complaints, and I didn't use one. Content may be automatically copyrighted merely by publication (although this isn't necessarily true), but the explicit copyright notice sure made things easier, especially since the hosting company got sold to a British company right in the middle of negotiations.

Re:Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[arkanes]

Content may be automatically copyrighted merely by publication (although this isn't necessarily true)

Yes it is. In fact, publication per se is no longer required (there was controversy about whether or not copyright should apply to non-published works, given that copyright was supposed to encourage publishing). Anything that is copyrightable is automatically copyrighted by the creator, period.

Re:Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[Urban Garlic]

I'm genuinely curious, why a DMCA complaint? Doesn't ordinary copyright law already protect against unauthorized reproduction, which is what he was doing as soon as you withdrew your authorization?

Re:Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[sakusha]

That is a very good question. I could have sued him for copyright infringement, but that would have required laywers, lengthy court procedures, and tons of money. And the venue would probably have been in England because the host company was sold to an English company, I don't have the money for an international copyright lawsuit from the USA.
All I wanted was to regain control of my site content by the most expedient means possible. The DMCA requires a site to remove infringing material immediately upon request by the legitimate copyrightholder. The host ignored my request, so I moved up the chain to their upstream, under the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions, they are required to pull the plug on their customer's site in order to avoid becoming equally liable for copyright infringement damages. Only upon threat of losing all connectivity for their server did the host finally remove my site. I win. Cost: $0.

blogs are a fad.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see so many blogs that have like 3 posts in them and then the author stopped posting. They're just the 'in thing' right now. People will stop talking about them in a few months/years and everything will go back to normal.

Re:blogs are a fad.

[Anita Coney]

I agree, I don't see a difference between blogs and those awful personal webpages from the 90s. Sure, some are interesting, but the overwhelming majority are NOT.

Re:blogs are a fad.

[catdevnull]

Normal? Dude, how long have you been online?

;-)

You're Not in Oz, Dorothy

[ackthpt]

Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them, conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

If you don't like your employer's attitude on these issues, you're still free to walk, you don't need a pair of ruby slippers to click three times and wish you were home. Enough people have the guts to walk out on an oppressive employer they may get the message, particularly if you mention it in an exit interview.

I've disagreed with employers and managers (who may or may not represent the employer above their own ego) and spoken my mind a number of times. It's usually best to form a plan to address grievances rather than uttering disparaging remarks in the break room or anonymously on the web or in the news. If there's nothing to be gained then have the intelligence to go. I truly despise hearing people whine about how they hate what's going on in their workplace, but don't do anything about it.

Re:I am troubled.

[UWC]

I'd like to extend my appreciation to the person who modded the parent "Redundant."

personal content mixed business (wife in panties)

[rich42]

we used to have a guy who'd blog about work he was doing for the company - with links to various client websites, etc.

he also had pictures of his wife in panties on the same site.

he was told to remove any mention of the company / clients from his site - but refused to do so. he was eventually fired.

Lesson from anon.penet.fi

[powdered toast dude]

Anonymity on the Internet is a dubious prospect at best in most cases. Unless you're using a hijacked or unpaid public connection, I recommend you assume you are speaking your views as yourself publicly, and accept accountability for doing so.

Remember anon.penet.fi? As soon as the heat came down, so did the veil of anonymity.

$0.02,
ptd

Re:Lesson from anon.penet.fi

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, that the heat should have never come down at the first place. Bringing down the heat should be illegal.

Always set up your own blogging system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there isn't any question as to who owns it. WordPress has got to be the easiest web application to install.

Blogs

[Anonymous Coward]

If its like 99.9999% of most weblogs....

WHO CARES! Nobody reads most of that crap anyways.

Its a waste of space posting about your totally moronic lives in detail to people who really dont give a crap.

Blogging seems to be in the realm of teenage girls and gossip. How bout you grow up and act your age for once?

What, me worry?

[Doc Ruby]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSTG.

Re:What, me worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you mean this user?

Re:What, me worry?

[melandy]

Shouldn't that be 1997-2005?

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

All your blogs are belong to us!

-Big Brother

Blog content ownership and control

[Todd Knarr]

I see it as a few cases:

1. Employee posting on a blog provided and maintained by their employer. Ownership depends solely on the terms the employer imposes. It's exactly like the memos you write at work: they're company property.
2. Employee posting on a blog they've set up on their own, independently of their employer, but are posting internal, confidential or privileged information about their job. Their employer doesn't own the content, but probably has a say in it because of non-disclosure and other agreements the employee has as part of the terms of their employment.
3. Employee posting on their own blog and not posting anything work-related. They own the blog free and clear, and their employer has (or should have) only limited ability to do anything based on what's posted (basically the company can legitimately object when the employee posts something in a way that makes them appear to be speaking for the company or in their official capacity). If the company doesn't like it, well... tough, you want to own my time 24 hours a day, pay me for 7 24-hour days a week, not 5 8-hour days.

The original article sounds like it fell into the first category.

Hello Timmy.

[essreenim]

You made a big mistake bad mouthing us like that. Please assort your belongings and place them in a box before you leave tomorrow. Make sure you bring your ID in tomorrow mornong or you won't be taking any of these items home with you that day or any other until you return the ID. That's right. We own them too.

YOYOW: You Own Your Own Words

[ewhac]

The policy on The Well, an online conferencing system that's been around since 1984, established a policy to address this issue long ago:

You own your own words.

That is, you retain complete ownership of -- and therefore responsibility and liability for -- whatever you write. This relieves The Well of any liability for the actions/writings of their posters, and the posters can rest assured that neither The Well nor any other user will turn around and sell their writings to someone else without permission. This policy, referred to by Well members with the acronym YOYOW, has been in place and has worked fairly well for the last 20 or so years.

YOYOW: Ask for it by name :-).

Schwab

I blog daily.

[Dagny Taggert]

However, I just don't talk about work. I could write several books about what goes on there, but what would it do for me in the end? If I need therapy because of work, then I should see a shrink, not blab about it to people who don't care anyway. Stick to politics: it pisses people off AND it's easy to pick sides in a fight.

Re:As long as computer use policies are spelled ou

[sosume]

Sorry, when did corporations become the Thought Police? I must have been asleep while that happened.

It seems to me that whatever you do in your free time is none of the company's business. As long as it's not work related ofcourse.

Simple:

[Anita Coney]

The writer holds the copyright unless he or she agreed otherwise. The blogger doesn't have to intend to agree. The agreement could be a part of some click-through licensing screen which the blogger never bothered to read but clicked "yes" or "ok" on anyway.

Not a new issue

[Mr. Underbridge]

Is greater than what you say on a weblog. It's about the ability for an organization you work for (or attend as a student) being increasingly able to dictate your behavior and lifestyle outside of the workplace.

And the courts have been pretty vigilant about restricting such things to that which actually impacts the company.

We've been on a fairly steady decline since they found out they can make employees go through demeaning tests for insurance purposes and are currently at the point where companies are trying to kick smokers out.

That's what our society (well, the US) gets for comingling employment with social issues like health care. I don't think the smokers thing will pass legal scrutiny, but it is an issue that legitimately affects the company.

Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them

It's not an argument, it's the law. Your company actually can't stop you from saying anything. They simply have the right not to pay you if you act in a manner not becoming of an employee.

conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

As pointed out by another poster, there were, but it's immaterial. If anything, a large multinational company is less likely to notice - or care - what the heck you do on spare time. It's smaller companies where the boss gets his panties in a bunch. And if you think this is new, check employment conditions around the time of, and just after, the bill of rights was written. If you think employees had more rights then, you need a history lesson desperately. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" if nothing else.

To recap: 1) People have the right to free speech and other freedoms. 2) If your exercising of these freedoms harms the company, they may have the right to cease employing you, depending what you do. 3) This is nothing new. 4) If anything, things are better these days, certainly than 200 years ago when there were NO laws protecting employees. 5) This has nothing to do with global corporate paranoia.

Re:Not a new issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The one big difference would be the percentage of people who are self-employed (legitimately, not 'contractors' who work for a single company) versus those who are employed by a larger company. After the end of feudalism and before the explosion of cities (figurative, of course), you see many more people self-employed. Those conditions are what permit capitalism to thrive. Conversely, when people begin to congregate in cities and work in large companies, as began to happen in the Industrial Revolution, you end up with a situation where company owners can treat their employees as chattel. The current state of corporate relations really a twisted version of capitalism itself, where humanity is a surplus commodity.

Re:Not a new issue

[Oligonicella]

Yet again, there's not a single thing preventing those people from striking out on their own.

A company cannot treat their employees as chattel. Chattel is an article of property or a slave. A company can treat their employees as neither.

You may not appreciate the manner in which a company treats you, but they cannot throw you in the trash or sell you to someone else. You are simply mistaken. Perhaps you should use another word.
If the current state actually considered humanity as a "surplus commodity", would we not have no employment?

Not sure what the fuss is....

[catdevnull]

OK, I'm fairly liberal on the issue of Freedom of Speech. But, if you're:

• Blogging on company time
• Blogging bad about your company
• Blogging about how much you hate your job
• Blogging out information that should stay behind company doors

I think you're asking for trouble. Your freedom of speech covers your political muscle not libel or slander. As an employee, there should be some respect for the boundaries expected of you. If you're fairly sure you have a right to say something, be sure to follow the same rules to which journalists are supposedly accountable: integrity, truth, and accuracy. No one should be able to fire you for that. But, if you're expected to maintain a sense of decorum or have signed a disclosure agreement, maybe you should respect the rights and privacy of the company or those about whom you're blogging. Otherwise, do something to obfuscate your identity--but bloggers love to be exhibitionists.

Personally, I think blogging is a bit of a strange habit because I'm an introvert and I don't think the world wants or cares to know about my feelings, political orientation, or how much I loathe/love my job, family, pets, or celebrities.

I do like to post occassional anecdotes, etc. but as a rule, I try to respect others and not type something I wouldn't want them to read. Or, if it's unflattering, I'll try to find some way to not assassinate their character but to find fault in the action.

The world is full of too many myopic opinionated people who care little about the effects of their words or actions. I think, we as internet denizens, should be careful to promote change with careful and constructive criticism and express ourselves with honesty without malice--even on blogs.

BTW: Bloggers suck. (Just kidding)

Re:Not sure what the fuss is....

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm concerned, as an "excempt employee", there's no such thing as "company time" for me. I'm paid to get stuff done whether it takes 12 or 6 hours/day to do it.

NB: I don't "blog", but I'm sick of this "company time" meme.

Re:Not sure what the fuss is....

[catdevnull]

I'm an exempt employee on salary--however, I have standard office hours--8:30 to 5 Monday through Friday. I also have access to my employer's computers and network. I don't think it's right for me to use those resources during those times to bad mouth my company on a blog. In fact, that's not just ignorant, it's arrogant to think that I would be entitled to do so.

If you don't believe in "company time" then by your arguments you are either always on personal time or you're always on company time. You have to learn to set and respect your own boundaries or other people (or your company) won't respect them either. You can't blame your company for being a slave driver if you tacetly give them permission to do so by your lack of clear boundaries.

Re:As long as computer use policies are spelled ou

[Anonymous Coward]

And when they are spelled out they can be overly broad. Leaving the company a lot of leeway to interperet them however they want and leaving the employee with few options.

You see the same thing with other policys that attempt to control not just work-time and work related activities (in which the company has a legitimate interest), but also in other areas where the interest is more questionable (see the current debate about banning employees from smoking at home).

I remember one non-compete that was put in front of me that would have (in it's broadest interperatation) restricted me from working in almost any IT related job. It was unlikely to hold up in court, but proving that would have cost me money (I didn't sign it).

Re:personal content mixed business (wife in pantie

[Anonymous Coward]

link plz

It's not new and it's not just blogs

[lukatmyshu]

Remember a few years ago when employees who posted prices on the deal websites (anandtech.com & fatwallet.com) were terminated? I remember that at least two guys ... one from Home Depot and another from an office supplies stores were fired http://www.spoofee.com/forums/archive/index.php/t- 1180.html/ It's because of this that the one post on /. I ever made about my employers products was made AC from home.

Whereas others...

[Vintermann]

would prefer to not split their infinitives.

when i speak...

[Anonymous Coward]

when i speak, who owns my 'words' once they have been spoken?

i wish this was all much simpler....

altered at-will status.

[slashkitty]

However, most people don't realize that your company policies may alter the at-will status. For example, does your company have an "introductory period," where, for the intro period, where after 3 months, your job is somehow safer. The courts have ruled that this creates an implied contract... so if you're suddenly terminated, check your companies policies! more here: http://www.ppspublishers.com/ez/html/030204.htm

Re:altered at-will status.

[Macadamizer]

"However, most people don't realize that your company policies may alter the at-will status. For example, does your company have an "introductory period," where, for the intro period, where after 3 months, your job is somehow safer. The courts have ruled that this creates an implied contract... so if you're suddenly terminated, check your companies policies!"

The rules for creating an implied contract vary from state to state, but in general, it's pretty tough to "accidently" form an employments contract -- even a simple "this does not create an employment contract" disclaimer is almost alsways sufficient to defeat any claim of impied contract.

So it's not something you want to rely on...

Re:altered at-will status.

[tomcode]

I have some kind of contract that protects me, I didn't read the details but it sounded like a good deal. That's right, I can blog all I want at work without any fear of... oh what's that? Oh... excuse me, I have to clean out my desk now.

censored

[whistl]

I was forced by IT mgmt to shutdown my internal blog when I worked at Ameritech Cellular.

There's nothing a communication company hates more than when people actually communicate.

Re:If you are a billionaire, you own it! ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I am reading that post as well. He's got some trouble typing with some DOuble CAps and forgetting to end sentences with periods

but he has some interesting things to say.

Things started to get a little shakey back in 1998.

In October of 1998 the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed. The DMCA was basically a law that set a very un-nerving precedent. That the government would do what it could to protect the interests of content owners at the expense of technological development.

To stay on topic:

All contents copyright © 2005, Mark Cuban. All rights reserved.
Blog Maverick is a member of the Weblogs, Inc. Network. Privacy Policy

He's not a very stereotypical blogger, imperfect typing (lj and blogger kiddies don't count as they're takin a free ride) and no Creative Commons. Oh well.

Mod parent +1 Funny

[LPetrazickis]

Quite amusing.:)

Pick the right topics to blog about

[hellfire]

Mark Pilgrim once blogged about him being a recovering alcoholic. He never blogged about work or the people he worked with. However, the people he worked for at the time found out about the blog, as he was not anonymous and did not take great pains to hide it. Well the company did a really sleazy (and in hindsight stupid) action of asking him to take this information down. They thought customer's knowing this would make the company look bad. Mark refused and was eventually fired. I was definitely on his side for this one. Something's wrong with society if you are embarrassed about alcoholism and this is not the way to handle it, IMHO. It's stupid because Mark is now working for IBM in their corporate blogging division. That former company gave up a prime employee and Mark's making far more money now.

However, a few weeks later a fellow blogger of Mark's was then fired for making comments about a coworker in her blog. Mark took up her side, but as I talked to Mark, and reviewed the comments, it was little more than bitching about someone who was simply a pain in the ass. Okay fine, you work with someone who's a pain in the ass, but would you tell that to that person's face? This is what you are doing. She refused her companies demands to remove the information and she was sacked. Frankly this was just stupid. If you have a problem with someone, you take up with your boss. If you can't fix it, bitching about it in your blog is not going to help. Might make you feel better, but it will make you feel worse when the company has to discipline you.

And I myself was subject to some policy, but this was a common sense situation early in the days of blogging. I blogged at lunch occasionally and I was proud of my site. My boss found out as I had emailed them from home once. So she checked it out and she saw one or two time stamps in the middle of the day. She asked me and I told her this was because I did it at lunch. She asked me if I could minimize the appearance of this (she didn't even ask me to stop!) I simply changed the timestamp on my posts to later in the day after work.

It's ironic, because, some of my topics deal with very confrontational stances on American society and politics. Hell let me be blunt, I flame 90% of americans in most posts. But she never once mentioned anything about content, because I never talk about the company or our customers in any way.

Sometimes, your principles are more important than your job, sometimes your principles are way skewed, and sometimes you just get lucky and work for understanding people. You have to understand what can get you in trouble and what can't, and balance that with what you absolutely have to speak out about.

If you must insult everyone, make sure you have a steady source of income from a private business that doesn't care what you say.

Microsoft to world

[AlanS2002]

All your blog are belong to us

Ban pregnancy?

[EvilStein]

God, that would be great. Nothing like having to pick up the slack for a female coworker that's off for months for maternity leave and then taking off early all the time to tend to children.

Corollary:

[Anonymous Coward]

Innocent people who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time get what they deserve.

Re:Corollary:

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Are you a Quaker?

On the Flipside...

[markmcb]

...can the owner of a blog ever be held responsible for content posted on the site? For example, if I post military secrets (not that I have them, mwuhahaha!) on Slashdot, is Slashdot at all responsible for the content assuming they take it down once they realize the problem?

And what about the ISP that actually owns the server (assuming you're paying for server space), can they be held responsible?

I currently have two sites that allow users to post comments on them, and have always wondered this, but mostly been too lazy to do any legal research.

Re:On the Flipside...

[cpghost]

...can the owner of a blog ever be held responsible for content posted on the site?

IANAL, but: the blog owner is responsible for the content, because he *directly* provides the platform to publish it and because he has the technical means to edit its contents. He must use due dilligence by eye-scanning the content regularly and purging illegal stuff.

In many (though not all) countries, blog owners can be held responsible, because they are considered being some kind of press editors. Even when they are not being awarded press status, they are still responsible as individuals.

And what about the ISP that actually owns the server

ISPs themselves are seldom held responsible, though they are required by law (in most countries) to react to complaints once they receive them.

Some ISPs can take down sites with illegal content themselves, when the illegality is very obvious even to the layman. Other ISPs prefer to wait for a court order to do so, because they prefer to avoid legal trouble with their customers.

To summarize: it depends in which country the ISP, the blog owner, and other parties are located.

if you are VP of marketing/CEO/CTO/...

[jeif1k]

it's not a "weblog", it's advertising and news releases. It may be a "weblog" in the narrow, technical sense, but the term is understood to mean something more like "online personal diary" with some technical features.

And company-sponsored "weblogs" really aren't "weblogs" either: they aren't personal because people know full well what is expected of them.

Let's not let companies steal the term "weblog" for advertising purposes.

it's Y2K+5 Even More importantly....

[kris_lang]

Egads! They haven't updated their copyright date to MV yet have they?

idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is on one of the links:

"then they risk being blacklisted by bloggers everywhere! "

Oh, the horror! Bloggers won't.....uh...blog at me!

Anonymity can be a difficult thing to maintain

[Anonymous Coward]

There are any number of stories I could tell without ever naming a person, company, product or place and several people could tell you I said it. When you talk about combinations of events, you limit who could have said it. Really good satire often doesn't mention what it is satirizing by name, but there is rarely any doubt.

No, they're just stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really *care* what sally-mae did this afternoon, or what jimmy feels about the new social security stuff.

I mean, who cares about this crap. Its like a bunch of people playing at being grownup and then throwing a temper-tantrum when people tell them to grow up.

And you can.

[rjstanford]

Those are indeed your rights. Of course, your employer can also fire you, sue you, or promote you, either because of your blog or without knowing about it. Those are your employer's rights.

Blogs; Employee v employer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!
A /. Topic that has not degenerated into an OS/programming language war. Almost worth a bookmark :~)

I tend to think that as long as I don't identify my employer, I should be able to post what I want on my own blog.

I don't blog, but I have no problem people letting off steam by saying what they feel about the people in their work by using pseudonyms. For instance; BOFH http://bofh.ntk.net/Bastard.html uses PFY(pimply faced youth) to describe his/her sidekick.

A little off topic, but it illustrates the kind of attitude that some employers tend to have towards employees.

I've had a situation when, while working for a major newspaper in the UK, I was called into a meeting with both managers because I had, on my doctors advice, taken a week off work with a suspected reoccurrence of glandular fever. One manager said 'What if I told you that someone had said that you were not ill when you took time off'. I replied that 'I'd say that person in question was a git and was not qualified to say if I was ill or not, I have provided a certificate* from my doctor telling me to take a week off'. The other manager starts shaking like a leaf with laughter. At the end of the 'meeting' the manager who had posed the question said 'By the way, I'm not a git'. Oh yes he was!

*In the UK, when your off sick, you have to provide a Self Certificate (your own declaration of why you were sick) or a Doctors Certificate (You've seen a doctor and they recommend 1 week+ off work) Doctors don't generally supply a certificate for less than a week off.

--------
Choose the right tool for the job! If you can't, quit bitching and get to know it.

Shadders.

anonymnity

[bodrell]

I've thought a lot about this, myself. Since you want reasonable anonymnity, it's doable. For starters, it would help to have a blog hosted on a friend's server. If you register your own domain, you legally have to use your real name. But if you piggyback on a friend's domain, a "whois" search won't find you.

The biggest problem I know of is future employers looking you up after you've submitted your resume. That happened to one of my former roommates. He basically ceased to write, because he didn't want his conservative family to know exactly what he was up to. Such as not attending church regularly, or participating in other morally questionable activities (questionable from the point of view of his family).

If you're concerned about privacy, it's always a good idea to make sure you're in charge of the server. Blogger and such may protect your free speech to a point, but I went out of my way to have my website hosted in another country (i.e., Canada) so Barney Fife law enforcement officers might have a bit more trouble abusing the Patriot Act if they wanted server logs.

Better question

[bano]

Who cares?

I could really give a rats ass who owns the comments typed by a giggling school girl onto some webpage.

Re:Better question

[inkswamp]

Nobody would care until of course one of those giggling school girls grows up and becomes a famous writer and wants to either a) republish some of her early blog work or, b) defend herself from "plagiarizing" herself by writing things similar to her blog material. Do we really need our court system tied up with these kinds of silly issues or should there be clear and well-defined laws concerning it? I say the latter primarily because it will waste fewer tax dollars (yours and mine both) that could have been put to better use elsewhere.

obsecurity--a new buzzword

[bodrell]

I know this wasn't intentional, but I nominate "obsecurity" as a replacement for the phrase "security through obscurity."
Example usage:

"I don't know why Microsoft keeps touting Digital Rights Management--everyone knows obsecurity is no security at all."

Anyone second the motion?

Lost job for griping about job in blog

[Anonymous Coward]

An acquaintance of mine recently became unemployed for this very issue. She routinely griped about her employer in her LiveJournal.

She was already in trouble for sending personal emails from the work computer. They ended up watching her LiveJournal for months (either because they were searching for the company name and her blog came up, or because they knew she had a LJ b/c of the earlier trouble). Eventually she complained about some particular incident which included identifying information and reflected badly on their company name, and they fired her.

I think she's happier now--has a new job that she doesn't hate.

But very, very stupid way to go. Guarantees you a hole in your work history where you won't have a good reference.

p2p

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely a RSS reader for weblogs is a peer to peer tool for distributing copyrighted content.

Simple answer..

[adeyadey]

All your weblog are belong to me!

Not just blogging services

[mdavids]

I recently aquired a virtual server in the US, and under "Unacceptable Content" in the terms of service, it said the following:

Other unacceptable content includes but is not limited to: sites promoting or discussing any domestic or international political issues...

As a non-US citizen this strikes me as frighteningly extreme. On the other hand, this is a country where people can be abducted by the state, imprisoned without charge and tortured (legally, according to the attorney general), so if I were running an Internet service in the US, I'd probably be reluctant to argue my clients' free speech rights too strenuously.

Let's assume (because I can't be bothered with research) that these clauses are becoming commonplace in hosting agreements. Well, you could always host your political website yourself. Except I imagine retail ISPs and other upstream bandwidth providers will also want to be seen to be doing their bit for homeland security, and adjust their TOS documents accordingly.

So where will you go for free political debate in the US? Call in to Rush Limbaugh? Meet in the dead of night in a cellar behind a cast-iron door with a peephole and a large armed man asking for the password ("crossfire")?

Re:Not just blogging services

[iminplaya]

...a large armed man asking for the password ("crossfire")?

"swordfish"

Re:Not just blogging services

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume that's there so when the Secret Service or the FBI come knocking, the ISP can disclaim all knowledge and pull the site immediately without any legal problems from the customer (after all, the customer was violating the TOS). Pretty chilling, though. I hope you'll be directing your funds elsewhere in future?

Wikipedia's ownership model - slightly tweaked

[Etz Haim]

Far from the corporate world and its madness: I'm setting up a community blog (in Greek language, I'm afraid) where a variant of Wikipedia's ownership model is implemented: The individual article contributor owns the copyright of his publications, and not the blog itself.

The site's policy requires each article contributor to accept publishing his content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (instead of the GFDL), or seek an alternative publishing outlet. The comments made to its articles, which may be anonymous, belong to the public domain.

You forgot one...

[Roadkills-R-Us]

People who do stupid things that endanger their employer deserve what they get when their employer finds out.

washingtonienne

[commodoresloat]

Look at the case of Washingtonienne, who got fired as a government intern for publishing a blog that included semi-lurid details of anal sex and prostitution with people from her office. She didn't name anyone nor did she identify her office exactly, but she still got fired. More info here, or just google for washingtonienne.

The upside, of course, is that she lost her $25,000 a year intern job that she didn't like anyway, and with her new status as a horny intern with some literacy skills, she'll be pulling in much more than that just for the advance on her tell-all book. In fact, that gives me an idea -- perhaps I'll start talking smack about the people I work with.....

Online is irrelevant, nevermind blogging

[Roadkills-R-Us]

``The woman who proposed that blogger's bill of rights got fired because she posted on her blog pictures that could be offensive to some of her employer's customers and let people know where she worked. That's just about one of the things that you DONT DO online. You just don't post comments that can be connected with your employer unless your employer has given you the green light to do so.''

It's not a blogging issue, per se. It's not even an online issue, per se. If she wants to put up photos dressed like that, that's her prerogative. (This could still lead to problems, but it would be an entirely different set of problems.) But to do so in a company uniform (nevermind on a company plane) can potentially harm the company image, and that's inappropriate by any reasonable standard. Even without the uniform and plane, suggestive photos on pages at all associating her with the airline would be foolish.

Had these photos been in a magazine, on a billboard, or whatever, she would be exposing (sic) her employer and hence in trouble. Law pertaining to this has been around far longer than computers, nevermind blogs.

yeah but

[commodoresloat]

then you lose the advantage of a 5-digit slashdot user id.

Re:yeah but

[kubrick]

What advantage is that?

If you are, indeed, a lawyer... Re:Common sense...

[hacksoncode]

...you realize that anyone can sue anyone for anything at the drop of a hat (obviously you have to have some stated grounds for the suit but asserting, however speciously, that you were fired because of your gender, say, would be such grounds).

Also, I'm sure you're aware that juries are often sympathetic to individuals over corporations.

So... while companies don't have to document things in order for it to *actually* be a legal firing, they almost always do in order to preserve the *appearance* of it being a legal filing.

People are quite suspicious of random, "no reason" firings (rightfully so), and tend to think the company must have a hidden agenda. In the presence of "at will" employment, ironically, the obvious suspicion is that the employee was fired for one of the illegal reasons.

huh?

[commodoresloat]

And if you think this is new, check employment conditions around the time of, and just after, the bill of rights was written. If you think employees had more rights then, you need a history lesson desperately. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" if nothing else.

This was written over a century after the Bill of Rights, and it describes working conditions that are a result of industrial practices that did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written! Your basic point is accurate - working conditions in the 18th century likely sucked balls - but slavery would have been a better example than the meat factory.

speach

[Lotharjade]

I think the question is whether Freedom of Speach or Slander is the more important thing to think about. According to how the country grew up we were allowed to speak freely even about our employ when off hours. In the last century businesses have been trying to erode that by trying to reclassify it as slander or other category.

To me our country should protect our Freedom of Speach first and foremost.

Re:As long as computer use policies are spelled ou

[Trejkaz]

What about those activities carries out using the person's own equipment? I don't think their computer use policy touches my PDA. :-)

Oh My God

[Hrothgar The Great]

HA! Torture? God I love Slashdot sometimes. Where do you people fucking COME from? Way to trivialize anyone EVER who's been tortured by comparing it to something so comparatively insignificant.

Please stop posting until you can develop a GOD DAMN sense of perspective.

Audio Lecture by Lawrence Lessig

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawrence Lessig spoke about this issue at Bloggercon III. You can download a recording of his presentation at ITConversations:

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail285.htm l

Re:If you are, indeed, a lawyer... Re:Common sense

[Macadamizer]

"...you realize that anyone can sue anyone for anything at the drop of a hat (obviously you have to have some stated grounds for the suit but asserting, however speciously, that you were fired because of your gender, say, would be such grounds).
Also, I'm sure you're aware that juries are often sympathetic to individuals over corporations. "

Of course I agree with this -- but the reality is, if you are not fired for one of the "protected" reasons given above, if you DID bring a suit for wrongful termination, it would be thrown out before it ever saw a jury, because the plaintiff would have no cause of action.

"So... while companies don't have to document things in order for it to *actually* be a legal firing, they almost always do in order to preserve the *appearance* of it being a legal filing."

They almost certainly do that in the case where the person being fired is a member of a protected class, in which case they do face the very real prospect of getting sued, or at least facing an investigation from whatever state's labor board.

But there really isn't any reason to do so if the person you are firing is a young white male christian...

YHBT YHL HAND NT

[Anonymous Coward]

NOBODY owns weblog content

[serutan]

People are starting Weblogs in growing numbers, but the owner of the content isn't always clear

Yes, actually it is always clear. Nobody owns weblog content because nobody owns *any* content. There are copyright "holders," who have specific rights granted by the government for a limited time, but they don't "own" anything.

The distinction between property and rights is not just a nitpick, it's very important. Nobody can "steal" what nobody owns. The concepts of property and theft are familiar and intuitive, much more easily grasped than the more complicated concepts of rights and infringement. Equating copyright with ownership, and infringement with stealing, oversimplifies rights issues to the copyright-holding industry's advantage. It lets entities like the RIAA cast themselves in the role of a little old lady chasing a purse snatcher, and cast their opponents as enemies of private property. It's just not that simple.

Okay, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I will go back and digest the rest of the article.

WTF

[EvilStein]

When I'm actually insightful, I get modded as Flamebait. When I'm being a complete dick, it gets modded as Informative.

you guys are wierd sometimes. :P

"Firings" on smoking grounds

[Anonymous Coward]

One US company recently asked employees to leave because they are smokers (even though they may only smoke outside of work). We're already making progress down the slope whether people like it or not...

WTF?!

[tre4lien]

What a bizarre world this has become - where "Ownership" of words spoken is not only discussed, but the topic is even taken seriously!

Where did this all begin? Is this purely a result of corruption in the US legislation system? Or maybe it was borne of the university tradition of referencing other academics?

Maybe it's just because I am from an older generation, but I don't know if I'll ever get my head around this new category of "Property".