Huffington Can't Be Sued By Writers

[Rob Lister]

Sometimes the courts get it exactly right. The whole situation, ridiculous as it was, is testament that many writers write simply for the privilege of being read.

Of course, after having been read, many may feel they must be owed something; the court disagrees.

Unpaid bloggers' lawsuit versus Huffington Post tossed

(Reuters) - AOL Inc on Friday won the dismissal of a lawsuit by unpaid bloggers who complained they were deprived of their fair share of the roughly $315 million that the company paid last March to buy The Huffington Post website.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl rejected claims by social activist and commentator Jonathan Tasini and an estimated 9,000 other bloggers that they deserved $105 million, or about one-third, of the purchase price.

The lawsuit contended that the work of unpaid content providers like bloggers gave The Huffington Post much of its value, and that the website's sale allowed co-founder Arianna Huffington to profit at their expense. Tasini said he alone had made 216 submissions to the website over more than five years.

But Koeltl said "no one forced" the bloggers to repeatedly provide their work with no expectation of being paid, and said they got what they bargained for when their works were published.

"The principles of equity and good conscience do not justify giving the plaintiffs a piece of the purchase price when they never expected to be paid, repeatedly agreed to the same bargain, and went into the arrangement with eyes wide open," the judge wrote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82T17L20120330

I concur. Which makes Koeltl correct.

[patrickt]

Fascinating. Of course, I would suspect there is more to this story.

[Talldog]

Legally correct yes, but sure sounds like the 1% (Arianna) exploiting the 99%.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Fascinating. Of course, I would suspect there is more to this story.

No, not so much. That is Huffington's business model; provide a portal for talented [and dare I say politically ideological] writers to be read, pay them nothing. Profit.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Talldog

Legally correct yes, but sure sounds like the 1% (Arianna) exploiting the 99%.

She did not exploit the 99%.

She exploited the "some of the people" you can fool all of the time.

At the end of the day, their gullibility was exposed and their sad, doomed litagious hissy fit just further reveals the general.state of their grasp on reality. Their various rambling pontifications are generally no more profound nor more well researched than other people who might debate on an online forum or put up a little blog. Every one of them is easily replacable.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Phogg

She did not exploit the 99%.

She exploited the "some of the people" you can fool all of the time.

At the end of the day, their gullibility was exposed and their sad, doomed litagious hissy fit just further reveals the general.state of their grasp on reality. Their various rambling pontifications are generally no more profound nor more well researched than other people who might debate on an online forum or put up a little blog. Every one of them is easily replacable.

Don't equivocate. Why don't you tell us how you really feel.

[Talldog]

Originally Posted by Phogg

She did not exploit the 99%.

She exploited the "some of the people" you can fool all of the time.

I won't argue with that characterization, but the fact is, if she was a conservative instead of a liberal, the mainstream narrative would be "evil rich woman gets richer on the backs of poor bloggers".

Just sayin'

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Talldog

I won't argue with that characterization, but the fact is, if she was a conservative instead of a liberal, the mainstream narrative would be "evil rich woman gets richer on the backs of poor bloggers".

Just sayin'

As ever was. Put the big warning sign on the door and the lineup to go through will get longer

[spellbanisher]

Occupy Huffingtonpost!

[HansTWN]

If it was clear from the beginning that the bloggers wouldn't get paid --- what is all the fuss about?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Talldog

I won't argue with that characterization, but the fact is, if she was a conservative instead of a liberal, the mainstream narrative would be "evil rich woman gets richer on the backs of poor bloggers".

Just sayin'

Given the overwhelming right-wing bias of the media, that's unlikely.

[WT Sharpe]

Moderator Notice
Political discussions are only allowed in the Politics and Religion forum. If you are interested in these topics, please review this thread.

Continued political discussion will lead to this thread being closed with no further notice.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If it was clear from the beginning that the bloggers wouldn't get paid --- what is all the fuss about?

They [the writers] feel bilked. They were happily providing free content for years. The majority were [no doubt] ignorant for the most part of just how much revenue their writing generated for Huffington. I'm sure some knew Huffington made money, but if you never see the spread sheet, there's just no real reason to think about it. Others never thought about it. A few maybe wondered how Huffington kept the lights on; hosting services are expensive, right?

Then the AOL offer hit the news.

300 What! Million!? Is that a typo? That's gotta be a typo. Tell me that's a typo!

Where's my pony!?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

They [the writers] feel bilked. They were happily providing free content for years.

Just like people here provide "free content". Would you expect to be paid for your posts if MR got sold?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

They [the writers] feel bilked. They were happily providing free content for years. The majority were [no doubt] ignorant for the most part of just how much revenue their writing generated for Huffington. I'm sure some knew Huffington made money, but if you never see the spread sheet, there's just no real reason to think about it. Others never thought about it. A few maybe wondered how Huffington kept the lights on; hosting services are expensive, right?

Then the AOL offer hit the news.

300 What! Million!? Is that a typo? That's gotta be a typo. Tell me that's a typo!

Where's my pony!?

I understand they feel bad, and want in on the action. But it seems (I may be wrong here) that the deal was pretty clear --- they contribute stuff and in return they get visibility on a big site. They might try to monetize that by attracting advertisers to their blogs or something.