Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

May 04 2012

20:00

Poll: What Do You Think About the Facebook IPO?

Now we have a date (May 18) and a price range ($28 to $35 per share) for what could be the biggest initial public offering in the history of tech stocks: Facebook. The company has grown by leaps and bounds since it was born in Mark Zuckerberg's dorm at Harvard in 2004, and now could make Zuckerberg richer than Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. If the IPO prices at the high end of the range, $35 per share, Zuckerberg could be worth $17.6 billion. So what's your take? Would you invest your hard-earned dollars in Facebook stock? Would you short the stock? Do you even care? Vote in our weekly poll, and explain your vote in the comments below.


What do you think about the Facebook IPO?

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

April 12 2012

16:12
16:12

E-books and Self-Publishing Roundup, April 12, 2012

The best stories of the week from across the web on e-books and self-publishing



1.
Who should consumers root for in DOJ's e-book lawsuit? (GigaOm)



2. Attorney General Eric Holder comments on e-books lawsuit (Washington Post)



3. Amazon's digital sales increased 29% in the first quarter (GalleyCat)



4. Can e-books help save the planet? (National Geographic)



5. Graphicly shuts down iOS and Android comic book apps, focuses on self-publishing (VentureBeat)



6. Top 20 free e-books apps of the week (eBookNewser)




Subscribe to our daily Must Reads email newsletter and get the links in your in-box every weekday!



Subscribe to Daily Must Reads newsletter

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

September 15 2011

19:03

Weather forecast: heavy clouds no rain yet? Groupon through the Glass Door

BetaBeat :: Employees of the daily deal giant have filed a class action lawsuit claiming Groupon failed to pay them millions of dollars in overtime pay. It’s another blow to an already shaky company, whose accounting is being questioned by the SEC. Groupon cancelled its IPO roadshow earlier this week.

Continue to read www.betabeat.com

July 30 2011

12:45

Joe Mullin: Welcome to America, Spotify. Here’s your patent lawsuit.

paidContent :: Every company doing anything interesting in the tech sector these days gets sued for patent infringement—it’s practically a rite of passage. For proof, look no further than the lawsuit filed this week against Spotify by PacketVideo, which was considered a hot startup back in 2001, when it was working on streaming video to mobile phones. Mike Masnick at Techdirt has some details on the history of PacketVideo, as well as a copy of the complaint.

Continue to read Joe Mullin, paidcontent.org

May 29 2011

05:07

Huffington Post blogger lawsuit: Jonathan Tasini got what he was looking for - exposure

paidContent :: Lawyers for The Huffington Post have moved to dismiss Jonathan Tasini’s novel lawsuit claiming that the popular internet newspaper actually owes money to its unpaid bloggers. Tasini got exactly what he was looking for from his free blogging, HuffPo lawyers argue—exposure—and his lawsuit insisting on payment must be thrown out.

Continue to read Joe Mullin, paidcontent.org

April 20 2011

18:49

Tasini Lawsuit Against Huffington Post Has No Merit

Jonathan Tasini's at it again.

Last week, the writer and labor activist declared war on Arianna Huffington, first promising to make her "a pariah in the progressive community" and then threatening to make her life "a living hell." He went on, in a splendid variation of Howard Beale's "I'm mad as hell" speech, to say that unpaid Huffington Post bloggers are "modern-day slaves" on "Arianna's...plantation."

In short, Tasini's a real charmer.

He made those comments in the shadow of a class-action lawsuit he filed April 12 against the HuffPost and its parent company, AOL. Tasini claims that all unpaid HuffPost bloggers -- he was one of them, until two months ago -- deserve a share of the site's estimated $315 million buyout value. Specifically, his magic number is $105 million. He wants not a penny less. Why that much? Because "justice" demands it, of course.

Weak Legal Theories

The lawsuit really is two things: It's interesting and it's a loser. On the one hand, the suit raises some provocative big-picture questions. Should media sites pay their content creators? If so, how would those relationships be structured? If not, how would the supply of free content affect the creative market? On the other hand, a trial court is not the best forum for those questions, and the suit relies on weak legal theories.

The big theory, the one I'll focus on here, is unjust enrichment. Tasini argues that Huffington Post has generated enormous revenue by inviting people to blog for the site on a volunteer basis, in exchange for exposure. The low production costs have lifted the HuffPost's value, with the "entirety of the financial gain" going to the site. The bloggers have received no money, even though their content has generated a portion of the revenue. As a result, the HuffPost has been unjustly enriched.

nln-jonathan-tasini-s.jpg

So goes Tasini's argument, and needless to say it's unpersuasive. The theory of unjust enrichment stems from the principle that one person should not be allowed to enrich herself at the expense of another. It applies in cases where no legal contract exists. After all, if a legal contract existed, then its terms would dictate the relationship between the parties -- their rights and obligations. On a claim of unjust enrichment, the court can impose the obligation of one party to pay the other, in the absence of a contract, if doing so would be fair and right.

In the Southern District of New York, where Tasini filed his lawsuit, a person "seeking relief under a theory of unjust enrichment...must demonstrate (1) that the defendant benefited; (2) at the plaintiff's expense; and (3) that equity and good conscience require restitution." In other words, Tasini needs to show that the HuffPost benefited from the posts written by the unpaid bloggers, that the HuffPost benefited at the expense of those bloggers, and that requiring the HuffPost to repay them is the fair and right thing to do.

I bet Tasini could satisfy the first two elements, either by submitting evidence about the amount of revenue that the Huffington Post realized from each freebie post, or by submitting evidence about the savings in production costs that HuffPost realized by using unpaid bloggers. However, I don't think that "equity and good conscience require" the HuffPo to repay them. Thus, Tasini couldn't satisfy the third element.

Not 'Modern-Day Slaves'

It's easy to think of the unpaid bloggers as helpless -- as victims of a tidal wave of digital-industrial capitalism. But that's too generous. I'd like to see writers get paid just as much as the next guy, but the HuffPost bloggers chose to write for free. They're not "modern-day slaves," contrary to what Tasini said, and their relationship with the site has been informal, at best. As Lauren Kirchner wrote in February, in the Columbia Journalism Review:

The thousands of unpaid bloggers...have signed no agreement with the site, and are under no obligation to submit their stories with any regularity. They do not receive assignments. If they have an idea for a post but then decide not to write it, they are not penalized by the site's editors in any way...When bloggers no longer feel it's in their interest -- or that it's disproportionately too much in AOL/HuffPo's interest -- then they'll quit, which they have every right to do...Every individual writer has his or her own individual motivations for contributing for the site.

Tasini offers no evidence that he expressed to the HuffPost any expectation of payment. Nor does he offer evidence that the site expressed to him that he'd be paid. In short, he had no reasonable basis to believe he'd get any money. For these reasons and in light of Kirchner's comments, I just can't say that "equity and good conscience require" the Huffington Post to repay the bloggers.

If they want to get paid, they shouldn't write for free.

Jonathan Peters is a lawyer and the Frank Martin Fellow at the Missouri School of Journalism, where he's working on his Ph.D. and specializing in the First Amendment. An award-winning freelancer, he has written on legal issues for a variety of newspapers and magazines. He can be reached at jonathan.w.peters@gmail.com.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

January 12 2011

17:45

June 25 2010

23:03
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl