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."
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.
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.
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.
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