Slashdot Mirror


NY District Judge Dismisses Blogger Suit Against Huffington Post

The Chicago Tribute reports on a ruling announced Friday that the Huffington Post violated no law in profiting enormously from the unpaid contributions of bloggers who wrote much of the content that has spurred the site's success. Says the article: "John E. Koeltel, a district court judge in New York, dismissed a class action sought brought against the Huffington Post by unpaid bloggers seeking $105 million from AOL and Arianna Huffington's media empire. The bloggers argued that though they initially agreed to do the work for free, the Huffington Post was 'unjustly enriched as a result of this practice,' violating New York state law. Koeltel disagreed. 'There is no question that the plaintiffs submitted their materials to The Huffington Post with no expectation of monetary compensation and that they got what they paid for -- exposure in The Huffington Post,' Koeltel wrote."

23 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by Haxagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They agreed to write for free, there's no unjust enrichment if you stated that there's no expectation of compensation at any turn. I hope some other cases go by this precedent, I don't want people taking me to court for cash from my small business.

    1. Re:Good. by ZipK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But other than being vigilant about any city rezoning plans, and raising a stink if some developer decides to apply to have it rezoned so they can drop a condo on the lot there's not much one can really do.

      You could buy the surrounding land and personally control its fate.

  2. Arianna by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who thinks that Arianna Huffington is a self-serving money grubbing bitch who switched from being a hard core conservative to being "liberal" just because she saw a better market opportunity there?

    Incidentally, the ruling is spot on. There was no expectation of getting paid until after the sale of the site to AOL for big $$$ when they suddenly had an open-source coder like epiphany: Hey, others are making millions from my work and I'm getting nothing!!! Sorry dumbass, don't work for free next time.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Arianna by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? I thought conservatives were all for the free market.

      Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction.

    2. Re:Arianna by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? I thought conservatives were all for the free market.

      Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction.

      Conservatives have nothing to do with this. This is a bunch of liberal writers mad because the liberal woman who they agreed to write for pro bono made a whole lot of money off their work.

      You are correct about this being how the free market works. The funny part is that there are a bunch of "progressives" acting like conservatives who don't see the irony of their actions.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Arianna by tsotha · · Score: 2

      Huffington was never a conservative, just like she's not a leftist now. She's just a moth attracted to the flame of political power.

    4. Re:Arianna by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      I'm replying to the poster, not to the article.

      My point is that if you take the "free market" idea to its ultimate expression, then it's just about money. If the market demands a liberal viewpoint, then as a good businesswoman it makes perfect sense for Arianna to ignore whatever personal political views she has and supply what's being demanded. It even makes sense to switch the viewpoint back and forth repeatedly depending on what pays more at each point in time.

      So why is it that the grandparent is complaining about it? It's perfectly in line with the free market philosophy.

    5. Re:Arianna by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      First of all, this is coming from someone who considers Fox News more credible than much of anything that Obama's teleprompter prompts him to say.

      Let's not get carried away, though. A stopped clock is right twice a day, remember?

      If you disagree with someone 100% of the time, sooner or later you'll be correct. That doesn't mean you're overall credible.

    6. Re:Arianna by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, it's not over.

      Second: pretty much the vast majority of legal experts said that it seemed unlikely the bill was unconstitutional. That's was reflected in the bulk of media reporting.

      Third: Chris Matthews spent the entire Clinton Presidency slamming him, and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. While rightists may have convinced themselves he's liberal because of his vote for Obama in 2008 - who, remember, stood as a post partisan figure, and who indeed has a bi-partisan cabinet - doesn't make him representive of any "liberal agenda".

      Finally, Fox lies, almost constantly, and pushes the agenda that it alone is a speaker of truth with the rest of the media being against it and lying. That's why, for example, you saw it pushing the "Zimmerman really did kill Martin in self defense, because, uh, he says so! Yeah! And Martin was clearly suspicious what with him being black in a mixed race neighborhood and stuff!" crap last week. It wasn't that Fox is racist per-se, it's that as the rest of the media was reporting a particular story, it felt it had to posit a contrarian point of view, to advance the idea the rest of the media was always lying.

      Just because Fox might tell you what you want to hear doesn't mean you should trust it. You're being lied to.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Arianna by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction

      Historically speaking, you're completely wrong. Bias has been the norm since the invention of the printing press (and with it, newspapers). The idea that newspapers/stations/sites should be neutral is an aberration that was born, and died, in the 20th Century as a result of the sudden scarcity of preferred news media outlets (specifically television/radio licenses in the early decades following the invention of those technologies). Now that scarcity is once again no longer an issue (as it wasn't when print rags were the only option--and note that neutrality was never common in print rags except for the handful of 'national standard' papers), neutrality is no longer valued.

    8. Re:Arianna by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      You have forgotten that the name "Capitalism" was invented by its enemy, Karl Marx. It is a slur because it implies that the defining characteristic is money.

      Capitalism is human rights viewed from an economic and political perspective.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Arianna by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      "Zimmerman really did kill Martin in self defense, because, uh, he says so! Yeah! And Martin was clearly suspicious what with him being black in a mixed race neighborhood and stuff!"

      First let me state that I do not know what happened in the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin (except that it ended with Zimmerman--an hispanic--shooting Martin--a black). However, the current released information is that several witnesses reported that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help. Additionally, it was NBC who first reported this in a distorted manner. NBC first broadcast an edited version of Zimmerman's 911 call that had Zimmerman say, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” The actual 911 call went like this: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” 911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?” Zimmerman: “He looks black.” The actual 911 conversation is much less damning of George Zimmerman than what NBC broadcast.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  3. don't freelance for free by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a very simple lesson here: If you think your work is worth something, don't give it away for free. Donating your time and the fruits of your labor to an open-source project or to a non-profit as charity work is one thing. But the harm that comes to a person from giving their work to a for-profit corporation is a self-inflicted injury. Furthermore, it doesn't just harm the people doing it, it also harms the professionals who are unable to do the same kind of work for a living, by undercutting them.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:don't freelance for free by Bieeanda · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sing this to the heavens. Inscribe it on the side of every mountain. Drill it into the mind of every student and budding artist, journalist or otherwise creative person out there.

      Once upon a time, 'Did X for Y' for free may have looked good on your resume. Now, it's barely more than a comma. Now, it's a comma that you paid for in sweat equity, because you were good enough to ask a favour of, but not good enough to pay.

      If you really want to put your stuff out there, and think you've got the chops to get attention (and good, because that's the attitude you need), do it yourself. Start a blog, or a specialist news site. Roll your own webcomic, there's plenty of frameworks out there. Throw your band's tracks up on its very own website. Just don't give it away for free to outfits that can afford to pay you for the privilege. They'll be all too happy to put their stamp on it and leave you with shit-all attribution.

    2. Re:don't freelance for free by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      Did you try reading the whole comment? Even just the second sentence?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:don't freelance for free by Mistlefoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't give it away for free. They were paid with exposure.

      Toyota (or any advertiser) pays dearly for that same exposure.

      Today the Final Four games are on TV. Each of these athletes works for free and for exposure and hopes that they benefit directly from that exposure. It might be the knowledge the scholarship provided them, or it might be an NBA draft day paycheck followed by a healthy career. Ask Michael Phelps how much he was paid to attend swim meets before he found a way to monetize his career.

      Nobody owes these people anything and this lawsuit was folly.

    4. Re:don't freelance for free by tsotha · · Score: 2

      This. Exposure on a popular website is potentially worth more to a writer than anything they could reasonably expect to be paid. That was the deal going in, and they don't have a legal leg to stand on just because it didn't work out.

  4. Agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once upon a time, 'Did X for Y' for free may have looked good on your resume. Now, it's barely more than a comma. Now, it's a comma that you paid for in sweat equity, because you were good enough to ask a favour of, but not good enough to pay.

    This!

    And with companies abusing their unpaid "internships" and yet corporate profits are at record levels. And if they do fall, you just know that they're going to can people, send more work overseas using the lie that they can't get enough qualified people in their home country or blame it on some lame excuse like "government regulations".

    Internships is just abuse of people's desperation to get their foot in the door and to actually get a job. And then there are the rationalizations by hiring managers that just cons folks into giving their labor away.

    And about the "not good enough to pay" part

    And volunteer work? Doesn't do a damn thing because everyone is doing it to stay busy and we've all bought into the lie that it looks good on a resume because "we're doing something while we're not working". Nope. It just means you can't get a paying job because you're defective in some way. Of course, no hiring manager will ever give you feedback.

    I swear to god, if I ever get a chance to become a take-over "private equity" guy like Romney was, I won't can all the peons; I'll take out the managers first with the reason that they're not qualified, their skills are out of date, and they show a serious lack of planning.

    I will then instruct them to get "re-training" in some marketable field.

  5. Awesome, simply Awesome by gelfling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since the general slant of HuffPo is a self righteous rich white liberal rage against the Cul de Sac smash the capitalist machine but give me a free iPad give me a bailout because I can't afford the school loan for my $250,000 MFA in post modern lesbian Marxist fiction I just love it that they're mad they're not getting paid MONEY for their ravings.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    1. Re:Awesome, simply Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...the school loan for my $250,000 MFA in post modern lesbian Marxist fiction...

      Not sure where you're coming from there, sport. I'm fairly certain that an MFA in post-modern lesbian Marxist fiction tops out at $200,000.

  6. Legal perspective on this: by bdabautcb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I run a small business in which I provide legal services for small law firms, including process service, depositions (in my state, as a notary I am an officer of the court and may swear people in and record depositions with a/v equipment), and transcriptions. My business works because in many cases, I can offer said services cheaper than national companies. Sometimes, I will discount or even provide for free service for a new client. I do, however, invoice them for the service and write it down as paid. I discuss their finances before hand, let them know that they will recieve a non-collectable paid out invoice, and I do not account for it in my business income/taxes/whatever. I have garnered several new clients by showing them what I do, and after that they happily pay for my services. I guess the point is, if you are going to do something for free and expect to be paid for it later on, do it on your own terms. No sympathy for folks who sign a contract to do free work and then sue later for damages. Although, that helps me in the long run because it gives lawers more bullshit to take to court, and I get paid when they do that. Keep suing everybody, America.

    --
    Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
  7. Baseball Parallel by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a guy who did sabermetrics in baseball who came up with a completely revolutionary way of evaluating pitchers and spread his knowledge for free: http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201101/sabermetrician-exile

    It's affected millions of dollars worth of salaries. He now refuses to do any work for free.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  8. It's the Web by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    How is it different from Slashdot, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc?