We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's been said (by whom? Dickens? Mark Twain? Homer?) that only a fool would write without compensation. That makes us, and most non-commercial (or de facto non-commercial) website volunteer writers, fools. I am a fool, always have been, and I make no bones about it.
The lawsuit against Mrs. Huffington cracks me up. For their own personal or career reasons, they offered to volunteer their efforts to her enterprise, unpaid, without any equity - and without taking any business risk at all. All they had to do was to mail it in, and their names would be in HuffPo lights. Instant fame! Their free choice. Now, they see dollar signs and want to change the deal and cash out.
That's the greedy, envy-driven Left for you. When Bird Dog sells the sinfully-profitable Maggie's Farm (which he created and for which he tries to ride herd on the willful and cranky volunteer posters) to Google for a trillion zillion dollars, he had better take me out for a good dinner at Hooters, with dessert, or I will never take him fishing again.
It would be decent and gracious for Mrs. HuffPo to show some appreciation and gratitude. At the very least, a big dinner at Hooters and a framed Certificate of Appreciation would be nice.
Statement of grounds: Unjust enrichment by the defendant? Did anyone actually force people to submit their writings to PuffHost? Wasn't the material volunteered---sometimes per request of course, but was it ever extracted from authors by illegal means or by contractual force? Wasn't it also a non-exclusive agreement, which allowed authors to post the same material at other sites? What the suit asks is for the courts to make new law that creates contracts after the fact, where none originally existed. I'm with GaryP on this one. God willing, both sides will lose.