who wrote sporadically for Huffington Post for the past several years,
knowing he wouldn’t be compensated —
isn’t the only one to pull out the strike
after it was acquired by AOL, saying “working for free does not benefit workers
mines quality journalism,” and that writers were being asked to “honor this electronic picket line.”
Tasini admits that
for the site didn’t have a contract, and most
as much as $100 million. In effect, he and others aresaying The Huffington Post may not have a legal duty to pay them, but there issome kind of moral obligation to do so.
This argument has come up in virtually every case where a “Web 2.0″ company
has been acquired for large sums of money. YouTube was criticized by some fornot paying those who created and uploaded videos after it wasbought by Google for $1.6 billion in 2006, and Flickr was also the subject of similar criticism fromsome users after Yahoo bought it for $35 million in 2005. The only reason sites
such as Wikipedia aren’t hit with similar criticisms, apparently, is that they don’tactually make any money and therefore they can’t pay anyone anything.
Is there any real merit to Tasini’s claim? Not really,
did he do so? He hasn’t said, but presumably for the same reason others did —