Paula, true. You'd think people would be embarrassed. Alas, the world is full of proud, naive people…

Those that wrote for them, probably never realized that their hard work would get stampeded on like it did with the big sale of the site. I can see their outrage, but again, it’s something that should’ve been looked at in the beginning . Not after the fact.

Use them as examples for new writers or those who have been around a few years, but are still struggling to make it. Signing up for places like this can have implications that they need to take into consideration before giving the go ahead.

Writer’s Worth day is coming up, isn’t it? This would be a good example to show our worth, don’t you think? LOL.

Rational people would be embarrassed to admit it, but…

Amen, WordVixen, amen! And there is the whole issue. These writers cannot convince anyone that they were unaware the site was making money. Yes, they were offered "exposure" but honestly, who falls for that? People who think they can't make it on their own?

Seriously, what did they think Huffpo was doing? Generously offering a place to showcase their talents out of the goodness of their hearts?

Sorry to be a little snarky towards the writers, but this is the problem when someone jumps into a new profession without learning at least a little about all ends of the business. In a business, the top level is always out to maximize profits. While the business model itself changes from industry to industry, it's always about profits at the top, and the best employees one can get for the least amount of money at the bottom. That doesn't change just because it's the internet.

In this case, the writers' claim might be for unjust enrichment, which essentially means someone is so unjustly enriched by the work of another that it creates an obligation to pay for the services he's been enriched by.

There's also a concept of unconscionability, which says the terms of a contract are so unconscionable as to be shocking.

I'm guessing the idea of profiting to the tune of $315 million off of unpaid labor might make a claim of unjust enrichment or unconscionability more colorable than most people think.

Not saying either is destined to work, just that there are equitable concepts in the law that may work for these writers.

And that, my friends, is about all of the law I can stomach in one day anymore! (Just kidding!)

That's what I'm not quite aligning with in terms of this lawsuit. She made money prior to selling. She was raking in ad revenue.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue…..

1) If I'm a carpenter, & I agree to build you a house FOR FREE (in order to put my mad buildin' skillz on display for all the world to see), unless we've entered into an EXPLICIT WRITTEN AGREEMENT ahead of time, how can I expect to be entitled to a share of the profits should you decide to sell the house?

2) We all knew Arianna was making big $$$ before the AOL deal, & we all know she's making big $$$ now. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the *amount* of big $$$ is now a matter of public record, at least as it pertains to the AOL deal. Not sure how that justifies a lawsuit.

3) Though I agree it would be downright wonderful if this lawsuit suddenly caused the masses to rise up in newfound awareness of the true value of the world's ink-stained wretches (virtual & actual ink, of course), I'm not as optimistic of that outcome as some here appear to be. To paraphrase the great philosopher Donaldus Rumsfeldius, I expect that the effort to promote writers' worth will remain "a long slog."

4. Not sure what this says about *my* level of sophistication, but I was nodding my head in agreement w/ Jake P's comment before I got to his "sophisticated sources" — and then I found my self nodding even more enthusiastically. Looks like I picked the wrong week to start feeling all refined & cultured 🙂