<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;slavery&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Guy Who Sued Huffington Post For Not Paying Bloggers, Doesn't Pay Bloggers Who Contribute To His Site</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/13223313909/guy-who-sued-huffington-post-not-paying-bloggers-doesnt-pay-bloggers-who-contribute-to-his-site.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/13223313909/guy-who-sued-huffington-post-not-paying-bloggers-doesnt-pay-bloggers-who-contribute-to-his-site.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Incredible.  Jonathan Tasini, the guy who filed that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/12162013872/dumbest-lawsuit-ever-huffpo-sued-bloggers-who-agreed-to-work-free-now-claim-they-were-slaves.shtml">ridiculous</a> lawsuit against the Huffington Post for not paying the bloggers who volunteered to write for free, apparently has a blog where he seeks out contributions from writers... <a href="http://gawker.com/#!5792078/guy-suing-huffpo-for-not-paying-bloggers-doesnt-pay-bloggers" target="_blank">and then, no, he doesn't pay them</a>.  John Cook at Gawker called him up to ask about this, leading to the following, absolutely hilarious, exchange:
<blockquote><i>
"It hasn't had any ads in several years, but there were a couple unions that did buy some advertising," he said. "They wanted to support the work I was doing." So how much of that did he kick back to commenters and readers whose e-mails he ran? "There was never a thought that we would do that," he said. "Oh, I see what you're doing. Are you comparing my little blog to the Huffington Post? That's absurd."
</i></blockquote>
Except, it's not absurd.  As far as I can tell, his argument is that the Huffington Post is different because it's "successful," whereas his blog is a failure, so it's okay.  Interesting legal theory, though I can't see how it holds up in court.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/13223313909/guy-who-sued-huffington-post-not-paying-bloggers-doesnt-pay-bloggers-who-contribute-to-his-site.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/13223313909/guy-who-sued-huffington-post-not-paying-bloggers-doesnt-pay-bloggers-who-contribute-to-his-site.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/13223313909/guy-who-sued-huffington-post-not-paying-bloggers-doesnt-pay-bloggers-who-contribute-to-his-site.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-getting-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110415/13223313909</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:04:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/12162013872/dumbest-lawsuit-ever-huffpo-sued-bloggers-who-agreed-to-work-free-now-claim-they-were-slaves.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/12162013872/dumbest-lawsuit-ever-huffpo-sued-bloggers-who-agreed-to-work-free-now-claim-they-were-slaves.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We may have set a new low for idiotic lawsuits.  Jonathan Tasini, a freelance reporter who was famously involved in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Tasini" target="_blank">lawsuit with the NY Times</a>, concerning copyrights on a database of freelancer articles, is now <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/04/12/aol-arianna-huffington-hit-with-class-action-suit/" target="_blank">suing the Huffington Post</a> for not paying him while he wrote for it <i>by choice</i>.  The basis of the lawsuit is the already discussed fact that a bunch of folks who blogged for the Huffington Post are stupidly upset that Arianna Huffington sold her site to AOL for $315 million, and that they didn't get any of the money.  Of course, they didn't invest their money in the site.  They held no equity and, most importantly, they wrote for the site for free <i>by choice</i>.  If they didn't like the "deal", they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110319/00355113560/if-you-think-writing-free-undermines-your-profession-just-dont-do-it.shtml">shouldn't have done it</a>.
<br><br>
In discussing the lawsuit, Tasini seems to pretty much admit that this is a <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/04/12/aol-huffpo-suit-seeks-105m-this-is-about-justice/" target="_blank">petty, personal vendetta against Huffington</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"In my view, the Huffington Post's bloggers have essentially been turned into modern-day slaves on Arianna Huffington's plantation," he said. "She wants to pocket the tens of millions of dollars she reaped from the hard work of those bloggers....This all could have been avoided had Arianna Huffington not acted like the Wal-Marts, the Waltons, Lloyd Blankfein, which is basically to say, 'Go screw yourselves, this is my money.'"
</i></blockquote>
In my view, Jonathan Tasini has essentially been turned into a modern day village idiot.  He wants to pocket tens of millions of dollars that he did not earn, that he has no legal claim on, taking away from the hard work of Arianna Huffington and the investors and equity holders in the Huffington Post.  This all could have been avoided had Jonathan Tasini not acted like the homeless guy on the corner who spits on your windshield, rubs it off "for free" and then demands money for it.
<br><br>
See how easy that is?
<blockquote><i>
"We are going to make Arianna Huffington a pariah in the progressive community," Tasini vowed. "No one will blog for her. She'll never [be invited to] speak. We will picket her home. We're going to make it clear that, until you do justice here, your life is going to be a living hell."
</i></blockquote>
Or, tons of people will continue to blog for her for the very same reason Tasini originally blogged for her: because it gives them exposure, and that's often a hell of a lot more valuable than money.  In the meantime, if you're a publisher, would you <i>ever</i> use work by Tasini?  The guy now has a history of biting back at two of the larger publications he wrote for with huge lawsuits.  Why would you ever publish his work?  It's a clear liability.
<br><br>
As for the actual <i>legal basis</i> for the lawsuit -- well, that's even weaker than I originally imagined.  There's clearly no contractual claim here, so Tasini is going with an "unjust enrichment" claim, which I can't see withstanding even the most basic scrutiny.  The entire basis of the lawsuit is destroyed by the simple fact that Tasini and others <i>made the choice</i> to blog for Huffington without compensation.  If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have done it.  Where the lawsuit gets really ridiculous is the claim that this effort "depressed the market" for Tasini's work:
<blockquote><i>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, TheHuffingtonPost.com's continued assertion that it, alone, should be enriched by the valuable content provided by Plaintiff and the Classes has the broad detrimental effect of setting an artificially low price for the valuable digital content created by Plaintiff and the Classes, depressing the market for such content and, over the long term, having serious depressing effect on the value of intellectual content being created by Plaintiff and the Classes and on the ability of Plaintiff and the Classes to support themselves as creators of high quality, engaging, digital content.
</i></blockquote>
So, let me get this straight.  You, of your own free will, agree to contribute work for free.  Then, you file a lawsuit complaining that this is depressing the market for your work?  And you expect anyone to take you seriously?  If this is depressing the market for your work, try this on for size: don't work for free!
<br><br>
It then follows with a bizarre and totally irrelevant callout to the Constitution's copyright clause:
<blockquote><i>
According to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by allowing creators to be appropriately compensated for their contributions.  Yet, despite our founders' intent, TheHuffingtonPost.com continues to assert that it, alone, should be enriched by the valuable content provided by Plaintiff and the Classes.
</i></blockquote>
Oh, gosh, where to start?  First off, this lawsuit has nothing to do with copyright, so calling out the copyright clause is meaningless.  Secondly, he's paraphrasing the Copyright clause inaccurately.  Nowhere does the copyright clause say that creators should be "appropriately compensated for their contributions."  It offers them the exclusive rights to those works.  And Tasini gave that up when he licensed his works -- for free -- to the Huffington Post.  Finally, the whole point of all of this is that the HuffPo does not say that it, alone, should be enriched.  As we've pointed out before, if Tasini, or anyone else, got additional work elsewhere due to his work on HuffPo, would Tasini have paid Huffington for that?  Of course not.
<br><br>
The claims of the lawsuit get even more ridiculous.  I love this one, for example:
<blockquote><i>
Defendants marketed themselves as a forum for news and ideas to get Plaintiff and the Classes to provide valuable content to it for free.  In fact, TheHuffingtonPost.com intended to realize substantial revenues from the free content provided.
</i></blockquote>
So... according to Tasini, no forum for news and ideas could ever possibly <i>also</i> be a business?  Earth to Tasini: these two things are not mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, at no point did Huffintgon ever hide the fact that she was running a business.  If Tasini was too clueless to recognize he was contributing content to a business that was making money, then that's his own damn problem, that speaks a lot more to his own level of business cluelessness, rather than any rational legal argument.
<br><br>
We've seen plenty of really dumb lawsuits, but this one is really up there.  I can't see a court spending much time on this one before pointing out to Tasini the obvious fact (which he ignores throughout the filing) that he chose to contribute the content of his own free will.  Can you imagine the impact on the internet as a whole if Tasini actually won?  It would basically uproot the entire concept of the internet.  Any site that involved user contributions would have a massive liability.
<br><br>
And, so, the end result of this lawsuit should not be making Huffington a pariah, but making Tasini a complete pariah if you are a professional media organization.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/12162013872/dumbest-lawsuit-ever-huffpo-sued-bloggers-who-agreed-to-work-free-now-claim-they-were-slaves.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/12162013872/dumbest-lawsuit-ever-huffpo-sued-bloggers-who-agreed-to-work-free-now-claim-they-were-slaves.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/12162013872/dumbest-lawsuit-ever-huffpo-sued-bloggers-who-agreed-to-work-free-now-claim-they-were-slaves.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-just-dumb</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110412/12162013872</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:09:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Rep. Conyers Compares Lack Of A Performance Right Tax To Slavery</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/2310128377.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/2310128377.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We thought it was crazy enough when an RIAA-organized lobbying group called radio <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080624/0254081491.shtml">"a form of piracy"</a> because it didn't pay musicians to promote their songs.  But it appears that Rep. John Conyers, one of the biggest backers of forcing radio stations to pay an additional tax to help promote music, has taken it a step further. Via <a href="http://twitter.com/copycense/statuses/9905049097" target="_blank">Copycense</a> we learn that at an event put on by recording industry lobbyists, Conyers decided to <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/84497-conyers-broadcasters-resistance-to-paying-royalties-similar-to-involuntary-servitude" target="_blank">compare the lack of a performance right mandatory fee for radio stations to <i>slavery</i> and <i>indentured servitude</i></a>.  Seriously:
<blockquote><i>
"In 1865, slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. No more free labor," Conyers said. "It abolished at the same time involuntary servitude. What does that have to do with what we're here for today? Well, when you tell somebody that you're benefiting from their work product but there's no avenue for compensation, it kind of harkens back to that great problem."
</i></blockquote>
What an incredibly shameful thing to say.  Beyond making the absolutely bizarre and ridiculous connection between the failure of one giant industry to force another big industry to hand over a chunk of cash (most of which never will be seen by any musicians), it ignores <i>basic economics</i>.  Historically, the money has flowed <i>the other way</i>.  For decades, record labels and promoters have used forms of payola to <i>pay radio stations</i> to play certain musicians.  Why?  Because they clearly knew that they got a ton of value out of those songs being <i>promoted</i> on the air.  Songs on the radio are advertisements.  What kind of industry gets Congress to <i>force</i> broadcasters to <i>pay</i> to run their advertisements -- and then has the gall to have an elected official claim that not paying to play these ads are the equivalent of <i>indentured servitude</i>?
<br /><br />
Of course, Conyers knows all about Payola.  Back in 2002, he was the one who <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/07/business/fi-conyers7" target="_blank">called for payola hearings</a> on Capitol Hill.  So how is it that he suddenly thinks that money <i>not</i> going the other way is somehow "no avenue for compensation"?  He's being blatantly intellectually dishonest here.  Is it worth mentioning that in the last election the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&#038;cid=N00004029&#038;newMem=N&#038;cycle=2008" target="_blank">two largest contributors</a> to his campaign were lawyers and the Music/Movie/TV industry?
<br /><br />
The performance right tax is not about "indentured servitude."  It's not even about people benefiting from a product where "there's no avenue for compensation."  Quite the opposite.  Getting your music on the radio is a huge challenge for most artists, and if you can get your music heard that way, it's still a <i>huge</i> boost to a musician's career.  Does Conyers think that when there's a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1028568252.shtml">popular commercial</a> on TV that people want to see that the makers of that commercial are "slaves" because they're not getting paid every time the commercial is played?  It's yet another example of corrupt politicians in DC pushing legislation that helps one particular industry, and making up completely ridiculous arguments to support their position.  This isn't about slavery or indentured servitude.  It's about Congress granting a huge mandatory windfall to the record labels (at the expense of radio stations) because those labels are unwilling to actually do something to properly capitalize on free promotion from the radio stations.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/2310128377.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/2310128377.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/2310128377.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sing-along-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100302/2310128377</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>