(NOTE: IUTBAL, which means I can say IANAL now, but couldn't always say that...;^) )
The problem is essentially one of scale, and context. When is volunteering OK, and when is it exploitative? For example, I'm a salaried employee, so if my company has something that absolutely has to get done *now*, they can compel me to drag my butt in on the weekend or take it home and get it done. They can't do the same to my hourly coworkers, unless they're willing to pay them for their time. Even if it's a really, really cool project and lots of fun to work on, those guys can't come in without being paid for it - no volunteerism allowed?
Why is that? Well, let's say my employer realizes that a bunch of them are willing to come in and volunteer, but a bunch more are only willing to come in if they're paid overtime. All other factors being equal, which group's labor is in the company's best interest? Why, the free ones, of course! Volunteerism is great for the bottom line! In fact, some of what my chunk of the company does could even be done by totally unrelated people, who might like the chance to come in for a weekend and do some work for us, on a purely volunteer basis, of course. More free labor! More profit!
So let's get back to AOL. Those community leader types are doing some very valuable work for the company. Without their labor, AOL wouldn't be such a compelling place for those who are compelled to use AOL. (Don't ask me why people do that; not my tastes, but it's obviously a big deal to the masses.) If all of the community leaders were to disappear, AOL would actually have to hire and PAY people to do that work. Which means, therefore, that the work that volunteer community leaders do has real economic value, and by not compensating them for that work, AOL benefits off their exploitation.
There is, of course, the question of whether one can be exploited without their permission. I can see some circumstances where people might volunteer for what would otherwise be a paid position in hopes of gaining employment. That's definitely something that a ruthless company could exploit. "Not this week, but maybe next week I might find you a paying job. Keep on volunteering!" It happens. Here where I live, it happens with farm laborers pretty often, in fact. It's a way of milking free work and avoiding paying people.
Implications for open source are pretty interesting. As long as contributors are essentially "independent contractors", release their work under a license (GPL's a nice one.:^) ), and aren't solely volunteering their work to one single entity, I think they might be OK. Problems arise if, say, someone writes a nifty utility that they only give to Microsoft (as an example), and Microsoft thanks them for their "volunteerism", incorporates the utility, and gets even filthier rich off it - that's a problem. Essentially, if I write something for my personal business, where I'm my own employer, and then choose to give it away, that's cool.
Make sense? (As much sense as legal stuff can, anyway?) - I haven't followed the AOL case too rigorously, but don't think it's necessarily evil. Face it, there's a few people getting very, very rich off the labors of a bunch of volunteers, and giving them free AOL access doesn't begin to compensate them adequately for the benefit they bring (and the profits S. Case et al. make off their work).
I don't think it's a question of whether he'd dare - or even of chutzpah. It's just seeing which way the wind blows (Winblows?) or, perhaps better, whichever way the cash flows. I don't think the guy has enough cranial matter to make a reasoned assessment of the situation, either way. It's not all that uncommon for presidents to ease off on cases that were filed under their predecessors. I don't remember all of the specifics, but I know when Clinton took office, there were several cases where his DOJ actually took a side opposed to the side Bush Senior's DOJ had taken. It's pretty standard practice.
And remember - Dubya's the one who gave us the campaign rallying cry - "There ought to be limits to freedom!" in response to a parody website. (The site's http://www.gwbush.com).)
George W. has made random noises suggesting he'd be friendlier to Big Business. Let's say Judge Jackson slams Micro$oft later this week - it isn't over then. Micro$oft can appeal, and if Dubya's in office (and controlling DOJ, as well as the Antitrust folks themselves - Klein may be *gone* in a year, y'all...), the vigor with which M$ has been pursued thus far may disappear. A settlement, on the other hand, really can't be as easily rescinded or ignored after November if Bush wins.
Don't mistake law for reality - politics play a very, very big role here.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is essentially one of scale, and context. When is volunteering OK, and when is it exploitative? For example, I'm a salaried employee, so if my company has something that absolutely has to get done *now*, they can compel me to drag my butt in on the weekend or take it home and get it done. They can't do the same to my hourly coworkers, unless they're willing to pay them for their time. Even if it's a really, really cool project and lots of fun to work on, those guys can't come in without being paid for it - no volunteerism allowed?
Why is that? Well, let's say my employer realizes that a bunch of them are willing to come in and volunteer, but a bunch more are only willing to come in if they're paid overtime. All other factors being equal, which group's labor is in the company's best interest? Why, the free ones, of course! Volunteerism is great for the bottom line! In fact, some of what my chunk of the company does could even be done by totally unrelated people, who might like the chance to come in for a weekend and do some work for us, on a purely volunteer basis, of course. More free labor! More profit!
So let's get back to AOL. Those community leader types are doing some very valuable work for the company. Without their labor, AOL wouldn't be such a compelling place for those who are compelled to use AOL. (Don't ask me why people do that; not my tastes, but it's obviously a big deal to the masses.) If all of the community leaders were to disappear, AOL would actually have to hire and PAY people to do that work. Which means, therefore, that the work that volunteer community leaders do has real economic value, and by not compensating them for that work, AOL benefits off their exploitation.
There is, of course, the question of whether one can be exploited without their permission. I can see some circumstances where people might volunteer for what would otherwise be a paid position in hopes of gaining employment. That's definitely something that a ruthless company could exploit. "Not this week, but maybe next week I might find you a paying job. Keep on volunteering!" It happens. Here where I live, it happens with farm laborers pretty often, in fact. It's a way of milking free work and avoiding paying people.
Implications for open source are pretty interesting. As long as contributors are essentially "independent contractors", release their work under a license (GPL's a nice one. :^) ), and aren't solely volunteering their work to one single entity, I think they might be OK. Problems arise if, say, someone writes a nifty utility that they only give to Microsoft (as an example), and Microsoft thanks them for their "volunteerism", incorporates the utility, and gets even filthier rich off it - that's a problem. Essentially, if I write something for my personal business, where I'm my own employer, and then choose to give it away, that's cool.
Make sense? (As much sense as legal stuff can, anyway?) - I haven't followed the AOL case too rigorously, but don't think it's necessarily evil. Face it, there's a few people getting very, very rich off the labors of a bunch of volunteers, and giving them free AOL access doesn't begin to compensate them adequately for the benefit they bring (and the profits S. Case et al. make off their work).
And remember - Dubya's the one who gave us the campaign rallying cry - "There ought to be limits to freedom!" in response to a parody website. (The site's http://www.gwbush.com).)
George W. has made random noises suggesting he'd be friendlier to Big Business. Let's say Judge Jackson slams Micro$oft later this week - it isn't over then. Micro$oft can appeal, and if Dubya's in office (and controlling DOJ, as well as the Antitrust folks themselves - Klein may be *gone* in a year, y'all...), the vigor with which M$ has been pursued thus far may disappear. A settlement, on the other hand, really can't be as easily rescinded or ignored after November if Bush wins.
Don't mistake law for reality - politics play a very, very big role here.