Huffington bloggers suing to be paid?

[z31maniac]

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovic...s-action-suit/

Maybe one of you is more familiar with the specifics, but the core seems to be:

1. Bloggers donated articles for Huffington to gain exposure
2. Ariana makes a killing in the AOL purchase
3. Bloggers pissed that their donated material made Ariana wealthy


Thoughts?

My initial thought is, well you DONATED the work for exposure on a well trafficed web site, what do they have to stand on?

[joshh]

They don't have a leg to stand on because they donated their time.

But i sure do find it funny the left is eating each other up over dishonesty. And yes i do find it dishonest to not pay people for making you rich/more rich...even if they are donations of time.
I personally would throw them some cash.

[mrsleeve]

They don't have a leg to stand on because they donated their time.

But i sure do find it funny the left is eating each other up over dishonesty. And yes i do find it dishonest to not pay people for making you rich/more rich...even if they are donations of time.
I personally would throw them some cash.

Yup have to agree with you totally on this

[kronus]

Yup have to agree with you totally on this

I guess the wealth didn't trickle down to them. Sad story.

[mrsleeve]

Nope sure didnt, but thats what happens when you GIVE YOUR TIME AWAY, they are not entitled to ANYTHING, the dumb bitch can keep it all if she wants too.


Like josh says though, If it was me I would toss them some cash as I prefer not to step on the people that helped me get there on the way up. Its their donated content helped get her there, If it were me I would not feel right not giving them something for their efforts.

You see this is where there is a huge double standard, the uber left who advocate spreading the wealth around and tax the evil rich to make it all fair, only do so if its SOMEONE ElSE'S WEALTH, NOT their own. This is a PERFECT example of this. Take our vice pez, he gives away an average of 369 bucks yup 369 to charity every year, ( I give 10 times that almost every year, an make way less than a 1/3 what he dose)

WASHINGTON — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year — about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

I can find 100's more examples of this and where most conservatives do just to opposite, Now dont twist me up here, yes there are many R's that pull similar shit, and there are many Libs that donate heavily to charity as well. Just saying that it seems the Libs with the largest positions of power and money with in our govt and leadership roles DONT.

[kronus]

Just saying that it seems everybody with the largest positions of power and money with in our govt and leadership roles DONT.

fixed ;)

(looks like I struck a nerve, sleeve)

[mrsleeve]

fixed ;)

(looks like I struck a nerve, sleeve)

NO really its a Lib thing, they really only like to give away OTHER PEOPLES MONEY

Here is a article written by a self proclaimed Lib in the NYT, this is the 1st part

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=2


Yes you have got a nerve, If you want to help the POOR SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY on those foundations and groups you want to help, DONT MAKE ME PAY FOR IT, IF YOUR NOT WILLING TOO. Its the fact that they champion for the down trodden but are not willing to spend their own money to help (the Huffington waffleswaffleswaffleswaffles is no different) only to spend tax monies ( you know other peoples) on such thing. CLassic do as I say not as I do that ALL Political leaders are guilty of in some form or another, just shit like this rubs me the wrong way.

Back to the Original Topic, I really think this lawsuit is dumb the bitch lived up to her end of the deal and the bloggers got what they agreed to outta it Exposure. End of transaction all parties are happy with it, till someone got paid, well you cant go back after the fact and go hey I want a shit load of money now that you made a mint on my work. I think if this fails and they lose they should have to pay for the her lawyer bills, its a frivolous law suit. Just because I or others would feel morally obligated to toss a few bucks in the direction of those that helped me on the way if I made a big pay day like that, does not mean I or anyone is legally obligated to do so unless contractually to do so.

[alwaysinabimmer]

^^^+1^^ Well put, thanks for sharing

[5ickride]

One could argue however that the writers, instead of being paid cash, did receive exposure in return that would allow them to not only promote themselves but also their product. They knew very well what they were getting into prior to submitting their work and to somehow feel as if they are "owed" something in return is absurd. What's next? Should all the people that use Twitter be entitled to a piece of the pie if the company decides one day to sell? No way!

[joshh]

Nope sure didnt, but thats what happens when you GIVE YOUR TIME AWAY, they are not entitled to ANYTHING, the dumb bitch can keep it all if she wants too.


Like josh says though, If it was me I would toss them some cash as I prefer not to step on the people that helped me get there on the way up. Its their donated content helped get her there, If it were me I would not feel right not giving them something for their efforts.

You see this is where there is a huge double standard, the uber left who advocate spreading the wealth around and tax the evil rich to make it all fair, only do so if its SOMEONE ElSE'S WEALTH, NOT their own. This is a PERFECT example of this. Take our vice pez, he gives away an average of 369 bucks yup 369 to charity every year, ( I give 10 times that almost every year, an make way less than a 1/3 what he dose)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

I can find 100's more examples of this and where most conservatives do just to opposite, Now dont twist me up here, yes there are many R's that pull similar shit, and there are many Libs that donate heavily to charity as well. Just saying that it seems the Libs with the largest positions of power and money with in our govt and leadership roles DONT.

Funny how they complain about "trickle down" yet this one is a hard core progressive who put the screw to other progressives....isn't she supposed to be fair and compassionate like all progressives?

[z31maniac]

What's with all the "fair and compassionate" bullshit?

They made a business deal and the bloggers were stupid enough to give away their work for free. I guess the bloggers thought they were so good, that soon they'd have their own web site making money hand-over-fist?

I hope they lose this. Contracts that are signed to and agreed upon being changed in the courts because one side sucks at negotiating is crap.

[joshh]

What's with all the "fair and compassionate" bullshit?

They made a business deal and the bloggers were stupid enough to give away their work for free. I guess the bloggers thought they were so good, that soon they'd have their own web site making money hand-over-fist?

I hope they lose this. Contracts that are signed to and agreed upon being changed in the courts because one side sucks at negotiating is crap.

You don't find it at all interesting that a hard core Progressive benefits from Capitalism and then refuses to give back to those who made her the money? It's called hypocrisy.

[z31maniac]

You don't find it at all interesting that a hard core Progressive benefits from Capitalism and then refuses to give back to those who made her the money? It's called hypocrisy.

That's not the point.

[joshh]

That's not the point.

I agree, it's just a side point. A person of good heart would give these people some money for making her a ton of money. I feel the same way about Mark Zuckerburge. Although he isn't pushing an agenda the same way Huffington is.

This is a large reason some people feel the need to attack Capitalism. Because they don't see money from the rich. Even though most rich people donate heavily to causes they believe in. But it's not against the law to be selfish....as Huffington is being.

[5ickride]

I dont see how HP is being selfish at all. Again, bloggers go to HP to submit their work on their own free will. Bloggers know UP FRONT, that they will not be compensated. Bloggers HOPE that their work gets published so that they could promote THEMSELVES and push their book/brand whatever. HP does NOT ask bloggers to submit work. But because HP was sold and Ariana made a profit the bloggers now feel like they should have a piece of the pie?? That's ridiculous. I'll ask the same question, if Twitter sold their company for a profit, are the people that "Tweet" now entitled to a piece of that pie? Hell no...that's crazy! This case will get thrown out fast and I have no respect for this guy who created the lawsuit.