Warning Letters Under UK's Three Strikes Plan Unlikely To Be Sent Out Before 2016 -- If Ever
Sweden Makes It Illegal To Take Photos In 'Private Environments' Without Permission

Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns

Legal Issues

from the live-up-to-your-promises dept

Wed, Jun 19th 2013 3:58am — Mike Masnick
Last fall, we noted the absolute hypocrisy of the major Hollywood studios, who repeatedly argue that they're fighting for copyright to make sure "the little guy" on the movie set gets paid. However, as we pointed out, it appeared that they were violating labor laws by not paying their interns. Lots of companies do unpaid internships, and they're almost always illegal. There are some very specific rules you need to follow to have an internship be legal if it's unpaid. Most internships, by law, are supposed to be paid -- but it appears the Hollywood studios didn't bother to follow the rules. They just wanted the free labor.

And, now they may have to pay, as an early ruling in the case has gone against Fox Entertainment Group and its Searchlight Pictures subsidiary, meaning a class action lawsuit for all its unpaid interns can move forward. Fox, cheap as always, tried to claim that it wasn't the employer, but rather the fake company it sets up for each movie was the real employer. If you're familiar with Hollywood accounting, you know that each movie is set up as its own "company" whose sole purpose is to lose money. That is, the studio -- which owns the company -- "charges" the company tons of fees for basically nothing, and then the "movie" can be seen as losing money, even as the studio makes a ton, and then the movie never has to pay out residual checks to the silly people who agreed to get a cut of the net. There's almost never a net.

Of course, since this is effectively a sham company, the judge quickly saw through that claim, and properly noted that Fox is the real employer. Now, as I've said before, I think laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly -- and if people can willingly come to an agreement where an unpaid internship makes sense, it should be allowed. But, it does seem ridiculously hypocritical for Hollywood to parade up and down the streets of DC insisting that its main focus is to make sure all the people who work on its movies get paid, including releasing propaganda commercials highlighting non-acting movie staff, and then go out of its way to not pay people doing work on films. If Hollywood wants to say that it's trying to get people who work on its films paid, it might want to start by not trying to screw many of them out of salaries. But that's what it's going to do. Fox has announced plans to appeal the decision. Remember that next time the MPAA is on Capitol Hill talking about all the "jobs" it creates.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: hollywood, interns, labor laws, paying employees
Companies: fox

127 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Hollywood, Government, Corporations, ......., 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:27am

    But ... but - these laws may seem to be put in place for our unfair advantage, however that could not be further from the truth. The truth is what we tell you it is and therefore we are not hypocrites because our reputation management folks told us so. We can do anything we please without repercussions, suck on it poor people.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:30am

    I can see the spin coming: "We need IPR beacuse elseway we won't be able to pay our employees. The fact that we don't pay our interns is due to piracy..."

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:35am

    So Chubby, do you pay all of those who create content for Techdirt? Or are they too unpaid interns?

    Don't bother to answer, I already know. Your futile attempts to censor one of your detractors by blocking his IP address has already revealed what a hypocritical douchebag you are. Honestly Masnick, the only thing you're missing is the bulb nose and slap shoes.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:47am

      Re:

      Now, as I've said before, I think laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly -- and if people can willingly come to an agreement where an unpaid internship makes sense, it should be allowed.


      Yeah you didn't read the article before spewing your bullshit. 3/10 try again

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jesse (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:24am

        Re: Re:

        The thing with unpaid internships is that it enshrines income inequality (and hence other inequalities, like race/gender).

        Who can afford to work for free? The kids of rich people. Let's give them more advantages!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2013 @ 12:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          A lot of people think that, but it's not actually true in practice. Most people who work internships support themselves with other jobs at the same time.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:47am

      Re:

      Who is the hypocrite in this story?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:55am

      Re:

      Still working on being the dumbest twat posting on this site? You're definitely getting there, despite stiff competition.

      You have all the hallmarks of a king among idiots - childish name-calling from the start, impotent personal attacks, a deliberate misunderstanding of both the point of the article and the reality surrounding it, an attempt to deflect from the very real and documented misdeeds of a major corporation in order to address an imaginary strawman and whining about "censorship" that doesn't exist.

      If you could insert a moronic Google conspiracy theory, a complete misunderstanding of a technology and a few libellous accusations against people who have nothing to do with the article, you'll have encapsulated every type of idiocy you people spout in one post and you can claim your crown.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:27am

        Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

        Actually, you ankle-biters keep making it funnier by biting on it every damn time. You just can't stop yourselves from inane response, any more than ankle-biters can stop going into a frenzy at sight of a cat.

        Fanboys continue to drift away from Techdirt because there's nothing here one hasn't already read on other sites, except Mike's characteristic whining.

        And since Mike is clearly a huge hypocrite on this topic, thinks laws against unpaid interns are silly while HE blithely exploits the minions, the fact is that all you CAN do as loyal ankle-biter is yap your fool head off at the critics.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:36am

          Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

          If all the commenters on this site are really 'interns' being exploited then I would hope Mike could fire some of them...you being the first. AJ the next even though he thinks Mike has blocked his IP address (and his comments still get posted).

          PS - "compulsive yapper", do you realize how much more you embody that moniker?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:37am

          Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

          So if people are drifting away from Techdirt, why are you still here as though Techdirt poses a threat?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:54am

          Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

          "Fanboys continue to drift away from Techdirt"

          Citation needed.

          "because there's nothing here one hasn't already read on other sites"

          This is not a primary news source. It's a blog set up to discuss issues reported elsewhere and to attempt to generate conversation when it's not being derailed by braying morons. In other words, of course you won't read the news stories elsewhere, because breaking news is not the purpose of the site.

          Are you really so stupid that you haven't even worked out the nature of the site you obsessively comment upon?

          "HE blithely exploits the minions"

          Nobody's being exploited, unlike Fox's staff. If you're so upset by people not being paid, why are you here so gleefully providing content for free?

          (btw, citation required for the fact that they're not getting paid, not to mention any exploitation or deception on TD's part. I suspect none of these exist anywhere except whatever orifice you usually pull your arguments from)

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

            "btw, citation required for the fact that they're not getting paid"

            I'd also like to clarify whether he's saying those of us that write for the site are unpaid, or if he's referring to comments....

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

              Judging by his other comments in this thread, I assume he's talking about you guys who write the articles for the site.

              If not, he's actually suggesting that people who write comments on stories should be paid, which is not only rather stupid but has interesting implications for a lot of corporate sites he presumably supports.

              Unless, of course, it's a Freudian slip and he's admitting that he is a paid shill, after all? In which case, as ever, I suggest his employers get saner employees since not a damn word he types is getting people to support his "points" and the lack of real counterpoints only makes the articles here look better.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:13am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                "Judging by his other comments in this thread, I assume he's talking about you guys who write the articles for the site."

                Well, then he isn't just an idiot, he's absolutely factually incorrect as well....

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                  Really? What do you get paid?

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:26am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                    He gets paid in midichlorians.

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:42am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                    Well, first, I don't generally talk about my income level in public from any of my professional roles, here or elsewhere.

                    That said, isn't the amount irrelevant to the discussion? The question was paid vs. unpaid, not an argument over the balance sheet...

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:53am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                      I was just curious as to how pro-content creator Mike took care of those creating content for him to monetize. No need to reveal the embarrassing specifics, I can read between the lines. Thanks for the response.

                      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:57am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                        I don't believe I provided enough lines to read between, but whatever. By your tone I can tell you've come to the discussion with your own presuppositions and that nothing will assuage you of them. It's been said it isn't what you think but how you think that's important. I fear for you, as a result....

                        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        RD, 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:11am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                        "I was just curious as to how pro-content creator Mike took care of those creating content for him to monetize. No need to reveal the embarrassing specifics, I can read between the lines. Thanks for the response."

                        Translation: I raised a point questioning paid vs. non-paid writers for this site, with the implication that they are all non-paid thus proving Mansick is a hypocrite in my world, and then when *multiple* of those same writers step up and verify they are, in fact, paid something, I hand-wave it away with a snide remark about "knowing better" than the actual people involved and move the goalposts of the argument to "oh yeah, how MUCH do you get paid?" and focus on that, pretending as if that was what I actually said from the start. Also, I criticize THIS site for the topics it covers, taking them to task for not covering "important" (as I define it) ideas and areas, but of course, I only do that HERE, and not, say, ANY OTHER FUCKING SITE ON THE INTERNET THAT COVERS WHATEVER TOPICS THEY COVER TOO. Needless to say, I am a completely useless lying fucktard shill who has no life and contributes nothing to anything and exist only to whine and cry and attack people who actually are successful with their lives. Since I am a failure, I have to punish everyone else for my lack of talent and ability.

                        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:39am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                          and then when *multiple* of those same writers step up and verify they are, in fact, paid something,

                          Multiple? No just one. And if he gets paid $1 per article or a similar pittance, that is no different than unpaid IMHO.

                          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:49am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                            "Multiple? No just one."

                            It's multiple.

                            "And if he gets paid $1 per article or a similar pittance, that is no different than unpaid IMHO."

                            The amount is far more substantial than that by an order of magnitude. Your point is invalid.

                            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            RD, 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:55am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                            "and then when *multiple* of those same writers step up and verify they are, in fact, paid something,"

                            "Multiple? No just one."

                            Yes, multiple. I'd suggest you try reading the actual comments, but we already know you dont bother with basic reading or facts.

                            "And if he gets paid $1 per article or a similar pittance, that is no different than unpaid IMHO."

                            Then don't open your fucking piehole to critisize and attack those who are actually DOING what you are incapable of. You objected, were proved wrong, and now you are trying to rewrite your claims. Tough shit.

                            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 10:24am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                            You see, this is why you guys are so pathetic and will never change a single person's viewpoint so long as you keep up these tactics. You start with stupid attacks that really have nothing to do with the article other than try to deflect attention. You base whatever arguments you have on a random assumption for which you have no proof. People in the know refute your claim, people who have no problem revealing their identities, giving them even more credibility.

                            An honest person with a real argument would either admit they were mistaken and either concede the argument or argue why it doesn't matter. They would present facts to the contrary (if the other people responding were lying or mistaken) or explain why your point still stands. Instead, you double down on the idiocy, trying again to deflect from proven points while attempting to pretend that you weren't actually proven wrong. You present opinion, clearly not based on any real factual data. But, the evidence is there for all to see that you are wrong.

                            Plus, you know what the best thing about all this is? Even if you had been 100% correct about your assertions about Mike and this site, that wouldn't change the actions of Fox. You have neither attempted to defend nor justify Fox's actions, only to try to push attention elsewhere. Had Techdirt been shown as equally bad, Fox would still have been in the wrong here. Even if you had achieved a score on Techdirt, the fact remains that one of the major corporations whose every move you support are the bad guys.

                            This is why your arguments fail. Not only are you unable to respond to any criticisms of the corporations you endlessly worship with anything resembling truth, you can't even attack others properly in your defence. Try relying on facts, evidence and reasoned opinions next time, if you're capable of such things.

                            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:06am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                              Sorry, it's hard to ignore the hypocrisy dripping from Masnick. He talks about the hypocrisy of Fox with their pro-worker mantra, exploiting unpaid interns. Fair enough. Some how he manages to ignore that he's doing the same thing. He's making money on others work and not paying (or paying a pittance).

                              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:33am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                FFS, really? Your response to being told to stop lying and making random assumptions is to... repeat the same lies and assumptions?

                                "Sorry, it's hard to ignore the hypocrisy dripping from Masnick. "

                                It's easy when you're only pulling the hypocrisy out of your own ass.

                                "He's making money on others work and not paying (or paying a pittance)."

                                CITATION NEEDED! You've already been told that your assumption about them working for free is a lie. You've already been told that your assumption that it's $1 is a lie.

                                Cite your evidence, or admit that you're an obsessive liar who's happy to let major corporations exploit their worker so long as you feel you've got some points scored against a random blogger. If you have no evidence, you are a proven liar, period.

                                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:49am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                  It's no wonder you are Masnick's favorite salad tosser.

                                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    AC Unknown, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:45pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                    And you wonder why Mike doesn't even bother with you OR AJ. You keep on attacking him and the people who read this blog (BTW, I'm NOT 14 years old. Been on the earth since the MN Twins won their first World Series.)

                                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:39pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                    Yeah, great comeback. You admit you're lying then, since you have provided no proof that your assertions are true. Don't the **AAs have anyone with a maturity level over the average 3 year old to defend them?

                                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:52am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                "Some how he manages to ignore that he's doing the same thing. He's making money on others work and not paying (or paying a pittance)."

                                Look, let's make this really simple. First, you keep saying no payment is made. This is 100% false. As to the pittance argument, establish some goal posts. Let's say a writer here is contracted to post somewhere between 5-10 articles a week. What would be a fair monthly compensation for that?

                                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:00pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                  I don't think he's up for reasonable discourse. The emotional hatred is strong with this one.

                                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:36pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                  I don't know. I think that an entry level wage for a writer is probably around $30,000. Add to that employer payroll taxes of around 20% (I assume Masnick treats you as an independent contractor, rather than a bonafide employee). Then most companies contribute modestly toward health insurance, so call that $4,000. That adds up to about $40,000/year based on fifty, forty hour weeks; which is about $20/hour. As you are a bit more than entry level and (presumably) part-time; the rate should be somewhat higher- $25-$30 per hour at a minimum. Assuming the writer worked 40 hours per week to produce those articles, I'd say a minimum of $3200/moth for an inexperienced writer and double that for an experienced one.

                                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:40pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                    every single writer who works in media either online or off will tell you how wildly inaccurate virtually every single assumption you just made is...

                                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:21pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                    I'd say a minimum of $3200/moth for an inexperienced writer and double that for an experienced one.


                                    So, you think that writers here should make more than twice the average income in the US? You aren't even on the same continent as reasonableness.

                                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:40pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                      "I'd say a minimum of $3200/moth for an inexperienced writer and double that for an experienced one."


                                      So, you think that writers here should make more than twice the average income in the US? You aren't even on the same continent as reasonableness

                                      Unlike you, I don't simply talk out of my ass. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

                                      2010 Median Pay $55,420 per year
                                      $26.64 per hour
                                      Entry-Level Education Bachelor’s degree
                                      Work Experience in a Related Occupation None
                                      On-the-job Training Long-term on-the-job training
                                      Number of Jobs, 2010 145,900
                                      Job Outlook, 2010-20 6% (Slower than average)
                                      Employment Change, 2010-20 9,500
                                      What Writers and Authors Do
                                      Writers and authors develop original written content for advertisements, books, magazines, movie and television scripts, songs, and online publications.

                                      Work Environment
                                      Writers and authors work in an office, at home, or wherever else they have access to a computer. Most writers and authors work full time. However, self-employed and freelance writers usually work part time or have variable schedules.

                                      How to Become a Writer or Author
                                      A college degree is generally required for a salaried position as a writer or an author. Proficiency with computers and communications equipment also is necessary to stay in touch with sources, editors, and other writers while working on assignments. Excellent writing skills are essential.

                                      Pay
                                      The median annual wage of writers and authors was $55,420 in May 2010.

                                      Job Outlook
                                      Employment of writers and authors is projected to grow 6 percent from 2010 to 2020, slower than the average for all occupations. Strong competition is expected for salaried writing jobs because many people are attracted to this occupation.

                                      Similar Occupations
                                      Compare the job duties, education, job growth, and pay of writers and authors with similar occupations.

                                      Note that the BLS does NOT factor in things like the cost of fringe benefits and payroll taxes into their computation, which I did. Therefore, I somewhat understated the numbers. Granted, this is somewhat skewed by high earning authors and writers, but so is most every other job category. I'm sure in this category, there are far more at the lower levels than the higher. In any event, I'll be interested to see if I get an honest reply from the TD staff writers. But I'd be willing to bet it's more like 1/4 of the BLS average which still sucks.

                                      http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/writers-and-authors.htm

                                      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:59pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                        Why can't you say anything without being an ass?

                                        I wasn't talking off the cuff, I was using US Census figures: the median individual income in the US last census was around $44,000/year. You are using figures specific to commercial writing (which I think is a bit misleading, but that's a different discussion), I was using exactly what I said: median income.

                                        Your expectation for an experienced writer was $76,800/yr. That's pretty close to twice the median. Even if we accept your BLS statistics, you're still inflating the value considerably.

                                        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:44pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                        Yeah, I don't know anyone who earns the median income you cite. You really have no idea of the income inequality in this country, do you?

                                        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:33pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                    "I think that an entry level wage for a writer is probably around $30,000."

                                    If you're full time, in-house employee, perhaps. I'm neither. Nor are most of the other writers here. Could we agree that for part timey work, that number should be about half?

                                    "Then most companies contribute modestly toward health insurance, so call that $4,000."

                                    You said you assumed I'm independent, which I am. Therefore benefits aren't included and I wouldn't need them even if they were, so I'm glad they aren't.

                                    " Assuming the writer worked 40 hours per week to produce those articles, I'd say a minimum of $3200/moth for an inexperienced writer and double that for an experienced one."

                                    You're not very good at math. You started at $30k/year, or $2500/month. Benefits are moot since I'm an independent contractor and we can cut your expectations in half since I'm part time, not full time. Payroll taxes are meaningless as well, since the only thing that matters is gross salary (for the purposes of payment discussions, I mean). What you arrive at is your suggestion, essentially, that a writer like me should make roughly $1250/month here.

                                    Let me assure you, my payment meets your expectations. Glad you agree I'm compensated appropriately. Can we move on now?

                                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:55pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                      You can't simply dismiss my assumptions. From your statement you consider yourself an entry level writer? OK, but I'd argue you are experienced. You can't simply ignore the the cost savings to Masnick by classifying you as an independent contractor. You pay double the SSI contribution and (I think FICA and FUTA as well). For employers who provide employees fringe benefits, treating you as a contractor saves them a lot of money. For employees, they pay it. For you, it goes back in his pocket.

                                      So what you are saying is that you are making about $1250/mo. for (hopefully) no more than 80 hours. That's about $15.62 an hour, with no benefits and you paying both the employer and employee share of payroll taxes. From money.cnn.com: The survey from the National Association of Colleges and Employers showed the average salary of new grads at $44,455.

                                      So considering the saved costs of payroll taxes and benefits you cost Masnick half of the average cost a 2013 college grad. But hey, as long as you're happy...

                                      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:16pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                        "So what you are saying is that you are making about $1250/mo. for (hopefully) no more than 80 hours."

                                        You're assumptions are STILL wrong and the chief error is this 80 hours a month business. It's really more like 25-35....

                                        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:45pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                          Plus, you'll notice, he hasn't mentioned a word about the Fox interns who got nothing. Even if his assertions were correct, he's now arguing the toss over whether or not what you're getting as compensation is acceptably high by whatever random standards he's picked (and based on assumptions he is clearly plucking out of thin air), rather than discuss actual cited court documents of wrongdoing.

                                          As if proof were needed, he's not interested in reality. He just wants to attack imaginary Mike, rather than get into the actual discussion about Fox paying nothing. He doesn't want facts, he just wants to attack the object of his bizarre obsession, no matter what the reality is.

                                          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:21pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                          I can only work with what you give me.

                                          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 10:43pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

                                            Or you could, say, not make up figures and accept that whether or not it matches some figures you pulled out of your ass, DH is being compensated for his work to a degree that he's happy with. If Mike is paying an amount the contractors are happy with, who cares what you think?

                                            Then, perhaps, stop launching impotent attacks on Mike that are clearly based on lies and false assumptions at this point, and turn attention to the company that's now going to be hit with a class action lawsuit for paying their interns nothing at all...

                                            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

            "of course you won't read the news stories elsewhere"

            grrr... can read them. Stupid distractions at work while arguing with an idiot!

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

              Actually, I thought that was fairly accurate. out_of_the_blue won't read the stories elsewhere because then he wouldn't get a kick out of make-believing that he's achieved any moral victories over us lowly paying customers.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          S. T. Stone, 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:47am

          Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

          Did you ever stop and think, for even a moment, that people other than Mike write for this site out of the desire to share information and start conversations instead of the desire to get paid?

          Hell, son, if I had the chops and the brains to put something together for this site, I’d do it without asking for a single damned thing in return. Why? Because I prefer to create without expecting anything in return, whether ‘anything’ means pageviews or dolla dolla bills y’all.

          Also: Out of the Blue? Really? Should’ve gone with Electric Youth. At least that’d make your ‘ankle-biters’ comments a little more amusing.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:10am

          Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

          And since Mike is clearly a huge hypocrite on this topic, thinks laws against unpaid interns are silly while HE blithely exploits the minions

          Well, for one thing, that's not true -- but, er, even if it were, how would that be hypocritical? Wouldn't it, in fact, be perfectly consistent?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:05am

      Re:

      "Your futile attempts to censor one of your harrassers by blocking his IP address has already revealed what admirable patience you have."

      Fixed that for you.

      The person in question not only added nothing of value to discussions, but continues to harangue Masnick in the misapprehension that he's owed discource. He is not.

      Why should Masnick reply or debate with dishonest people such as the person you mention?

      Why shouldn't he be removed if all he does is lie(he does), harass(does this too), and bring nothing to a discussion but slander and obnoxious behaviour(undeniable)?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Howard (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:08am

      Nothing to see here

      Please move along

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:36am

        Re: Nothing to see here

        Please move along [hyperlink to “Do Not Feed Troll” jpeg]

        How long have you been participating in online discussions? Years? Decades? ( Long enough to have found a “Do not feed troll” jpeg. Not necessarily long enough to post an ASCII art sign. )

        In all your time participating in online discussions, have you been observant enough to notice that the cutesy ASCI art, and the jpegs —all the “Ignore Trolls” advice— all that just does not fucking work?

        Have you observed that phenomenon? Carefully observed it? Like a scientist observes phenomena, or even just how an astute observer looks at things…


        Note that I'm not making any kind normative statement, here. We might all think it should work. We might all wish for that. But “wishes are not horses” as the saying goes, and even a blind man could see that.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Tim Griffiths (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:48am

          Re: Re: Nothing to see here

          The issue here isn't dealing with troll, if you ignore him he won't go away and may even escalate his insanity but at the moment every thread is the same old crap. Techdirt takes the view that the trolls can spirt interesting debate, which they often can, but this can't and it's just bubbling over with the same people saying the same things over and over. Repeating the same actions and expecting different results is madness, the troll is mad but the rest of us show know better. I'd much prefer if we could just act like these troll posts are the dog crap they are and avoid treading on them while we get on with our lives.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Anonymous Howard (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here

            Explained better than I could.

            The other point is that if you look at the length of the replies, you'll notice that they take up a prominent part of the comment section, and it's annoying to have to browse through all the pointless trollbashing to find good comments.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here

            I'd much prefer if…

            Well, you're making a “normative” assertion there.

            Wikipedia: Normative
            Normative has specialized contextual meanings in several academic disciplines.…

            Philosophy

            In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.…

            Social sciences and economics

            In the social sciences, the term "normative" has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural 'norms'…

            Law

            In law, as an academic discipline, the term "normative" is used to describe the way something ought to be done…


            In contrast, when I say “just does not fucking work”, I'm describing my observations. Now, place that in context: I was referring specifically to ASCII art, jpegs, and “Do not feed troll” advice. All of which may be well-intentioned, but no matter how well-intended, just does not fucking work.

            When you're claiming “should” and “ought”, you're speaking along a different axis than my claim of “is”.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Tim Griffiths (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here

              "The issue here isn't dealing with troll"

              I.e. your "is" is irrelevant to my proposed action for the reasons I then stated.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Niall (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:38am

          Re: Re: Nothing to see here

          He posts a one-line link that's perfectly appropriate and you write an 8-line diatribe which even manages to disparage him for not using ASCII art?

          If you were to follow your own advice, you shouldn't have posted, or at least should have been as succinct as Anonymous Howard.

          /| /| | |
          ||__|| | Please don't |
          / O O\__ feed |
          / \ the trolls |
          / \ \ |
          / _ \ \ ----------------------
          / |\____\ \ ||
          / | | | |\____/ ||
          / \|_|_|/ | __||
          / / \ |____| ||
          / | | /| | --|
          | | |// |____ --|
          * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
          *-- _--\ _ \ // |
          / _ \\ _ // | /
          * / \_ /- | - | |
          * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

          Ooo look. Tecdirt is kerned, so ASCII art doesn't work. So I think Howard wins, 1-0 ;) (Ok, I know he could have posted a link)

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here

            Ooo look. Tecdirt is kerned…

            <tt>monospaced type</tt>
             

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Anonymous Howard (profile), 20 Jun 2013 @ 1:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here

              how the f*** ascii art is any way relevant to this topic? I think modern computers are way past tty grade graphics.

              Anyway, the point is raise awareness of non-productive troll bashing. If it deter 2 people, then we gained a net 1 comment space. Of course you can't measure non-commenters, because it's a schrodinger's forum.

              Instead, we're now arguing if it is necessary or not, effectively doing the troll a favor. Thank you!

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      me myself and I, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:11am

      Re:

      Sweet lord man.. if you hate him that much.. stop reading his posts..

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greevar (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:47am

      Re:

      I promise you that whatever your endgame is, it will not succeed. You're wasting your time. You're not going to turn the readership against Mike. You're not going to miraculously herald some great coup against Mike and TechDirt that will forever discredit them. You have accomplished nothing but the ire and disgust of everyone around you. You are the equivalent of a feminist rally protesting in the middle of a funeral calling the deceased a "rape apologist". You have no morals, so self-respect, and no clue.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:46pm

      Re:

      Your futile attempts to censor one of your detractors by blocking his IP address has already revealed what a hypocritical douchebag you are.

      AJ, we all can tell this is you. I'd ask you to stop resorting to sock puppetry, but I know you won't.

      It does show how hypocritical you are every time you falsely accuse Mike of using sock puppets. Like every accusation you level against Techdirt, they're all based on your behavior.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:41pm

      Re:

      What you really mean is 'don't bother to respond because I don't care if it's true or not.'

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The Real Michael, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:36am

    The bigger question is, how does Hollywood continue to blatantly cheat the system and nothing gets done about it?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Howard (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:09am

      Re:

      Probably something to do with campaign donations. Just a gut feeling

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      S. T. Stone, 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      Money, dear boy.

      Everybody’s got a price.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Nathaniel Bonini, 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      Nothing gets done about it because there is a never ending line of people who will do these jobs for less and less compensation. The unions are the only thing standing in the way of the studios to stop paying for labor and residuals.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:38am

    this has been going on for decades. everyone knows it has been going on and Fox would have been better off paying up and keeping quiet. thankfully, in my opinion, it has done the opposite! this practice is now going to receive some serious attention! i wonder now, having managed to ignore all the real truths there are about the entertainment industries and Hollywood that the various Congress people and the government are going to be able to continue to ignore the truth and do whatever the industries say? the only thing that these people dont have in front of them is a giant placard stating the truth and that they need to do something about it! for Dodd to say that the funding of previous years may stop shows the state of things. if a government or political party, even a politician, has to rely totally on 'donations' to remain in politics let alone in charge, we are in real deep shit!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Grover (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:29am

      Re: relying on donations

      This is the real root of the problem, politicians constantly stumping for more "...'donations' to remain in politics..." The fact that Follyhood, MPAA, RIAA, and every major corporation out there who shuttle their little money bots off to Washington on a daily basis isn't so much the problem - they're just so many ticks in the woods that should be treated with pesticides - it's the politicians who spurt their phermorones out into the wind to lure them into their offices that are the real issue.

      If it were illegal to "make donations," politicians would be forced to yield to the will of their constituents, those people who voted to give these morally-corrupt politicians the opportunity to serve their voters. . . and not themselves.

      I've always thought, maybe naievly, that to minimize, if not altogether eliminate the influence of the deep-pocketed corporations on our politicians, we need term limits. Let no person serve in a political position for more than two years, and mandate that no person accept graft, or donations, if you will. Too many people get into a position of power where greed eventually comes knocking on their door - and they can't say no, because everyone else is doing it. Repeal this enormous farce that a corporation can be treated as a person - seriously, this is just too stupid to be even considered, let alone made into law. OK, rant over; my brain is too full of wtf.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:02am

    Unnamed excrements has involuntarily collided with a rotating arrangement of blades.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greevar (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:55am

      Re:

      I believe you mean to say that the colorectal excretions have adhered to the circumvolutory device.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:08am

    average_joe, horse with no name and out_of_the_blue just hate it when due process is enforced.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:11am

    "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

    Those laws are to prevent the exploitation of labor -- not just the interns, silly, but those the interns put out of work by doing it for nothing.

    But of course you're not a laborer, you're a grifter. Your anti-labor stance is solid.

    You think it's fine that someone at hollywoodreporter.com labors for YOUR benefit in writing the story so that you can grab the content and get money off it.

    And you think it's fine your witling minions labor so that you can get money off their re-writing too.

    In short, you're in the 1% privileged class who've never had to compete, and don't understand why laws are put in place to prevent The Rich from giving people "opportunity" which is sheerly to exploit their labor.

    But of course you're a hypocrite to believe "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly", and then wish for that to be enforced selectively against those you deem enemies, but not against you who have writers working for nothing. That's just SHEER hypocrisy.


    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    All the news you saw last week on other sites, re-written to cherry pick points that fit Mike's agenda.
    01:10:49[b-101-4]

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:16am

      Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

      Go to France you'll be happier there.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:20am

      Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

      Yet, here you are, willingly and repeatedly giving Mike content for free yourself.

      You know what's really sad? The completely idiotic angles you and the ACs are spewing are both so deluded and so similar, I am wondering if you're all the same person. It would be truly sad to think that while I've been mocking a handful of idiots, I've actually just been attacking a single person with severe mental issues.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:33am

        Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

        @ "PaulT":

        Yeah, there's a basic flaw in that MY content IS interesting or at least provocative and so I somewhat aid Mike. I try to be boring and always get in a dig to offset it.

        YOU, however, with your incessant knee-jerk empty yapping at critics, actually only detract from the site! Funny world, ain't it?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:37am

          Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

          It's interesting in the same way that honey booboo is interesting. People love to watch trainwrecks in progress. We can't help ourselves.
          That doesn't validate the quality of your comments, however.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:42am

          Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

          So in other words, by criticising the RIAA, MPAA and IFPI's actions, Masnick is helping to improve them. Masnick writes the content that drives people to them. You, on the other hand, are making things worse for copyright enforcement by detracting Masnick.

          Fantastic, now we've got all that cleared up.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Greevar (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:57am

          Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

          You are the written equivalent to the show "Jackass".

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:08am

          Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

          It must be a scary world you live in, to have such delusions and lack of logical consistency fighting for domination over your tiny mind.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:33am

        Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

        They are definitely not the same person.
        But they may be in the same office or employer.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

          But they may be in the same office or employer.

          I kind of doubt it, not least because out_of_the_blue seems utterly unemployable.

          No, I believe that they're the copyright equivalent of Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads." Someone comes up with an idiotic talking point, and they all repeat it.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

            Someone comes up with an idiotic talking point, and they all repeat it.

            Of course, in Average Joe's case, that "someone" would be a See 'N Say.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

            No, I believe that they're the copyright equivalent of Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads." Someone comes up with an idiotic talking point, and they all repeat it.

            Oh, you mean like: "SOPA will break the internet"? Or "SOPA will put Justin Bieber in jail"? Something like that?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Eric L., 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

              Of course, the fact that these statements were made in concordance with actual facts surrounding what SOPA actually said should be completely discounted. Obviously, these statements, taken out of context, should be on the level as tired hyperbole anti-Mike attacks because he doesn't pay his writers, or doesn't pay them enough, or [insert unsubstantiated bullshit here].

              What you are really doing is the old "When you beat your wife trick". "Why didn't you pay your writers Mike? Why didn't you pay them enough?"

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:39am

      Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

      What? Those other personalities are *also* you? I thought there were at least three of them, Cathy, unless one of the others has started to borrow your M.O.

      BTW a loopy tour of your excrescence, I mean, blog, reveals that you're always paranoid and raving about Google and the govt. as if they are one and the same while railing against the very spying that the pro-maximalists you claim to support are promoting.

      Only a personality as fractured as yours can contract itself so blatantly and so often.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:40am

      Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

      So people are forced into work because of no other way to get into the industry they want to get into - and are put through ungodly hours and working conditions - and all this is against the law - and the first people you blame are the people being put through all this.

      You're the sort of person that would blame the kid punched by the bully for hitting the bully's fist with his eyeball.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Greevar (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:00am

        Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

        Deflect and blame the victim is their go-to tactic.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:16am

      Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

      Spoken like a true failure, one who did try to do something they thought would change the world, only to find out its actually really damn hard and alot of work to do so.

      Or you found out your "idea" wasnt worth what you thought it was in the free market and think its due to the mythical 1% that know your idea would "hurt them"

      I have noticed a tendency for all those that rail against the 1% (and like to sit and talk but not take any action, or wait for others to do the hard work on trying to change) are always some combination of the 2 and will not look back at their ownselves to find the fundimental flaw in their private failure.

      I suggest some self reflection is in order.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:31am

      Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"

      But of course you're not a laborer, you're a grifter..... you're in the 1% privileged class who've never had to compete


      Hey Mike, you gonna let the rest of us in on the secret to creating a wildly popular blog with thousands of daily pageviews - all without expending any labor whatsoever and a complete lack of any competition? That sounds like one awesome opportunity to me. My Powerball Retirement Fund hasn't given me the returns I expected.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    avideogameplayer, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:15am

    $5 says that lawyer from Prenda shows up to 'object' to this class action...

    After all, copyright trolling only buys so many shovels to throw around the bullshit...

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:31am

    They get paid in having the benefit of working for the glorious Hollywood Empire. That should be reward in of itself.
    But no, the glorious empire extends its favor even further by not demanding that they pay for the opportunity.
    And yet still they continue to give as they also do not also sue those very people.
    Does their grace know no bounds? No, it does not.
    Hail the Hollywood Empire. Hail!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:33am

      Re:

      Everyone should be thankful for what the job creators give us poor heathen miscreants. All hail the job creators.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:46am

        Re: Re:

        We are all job creators. Whether you are suckling at the government teat or making decent money to spend on the abundance of the market, in aggregate, you are contributing to the employ of workers to provide your service, material, or sustenance.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:48am

    Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

    Just in case any new readers drop in and don't see the point made by critics who are buried as usual by empty, off-topic, ankle-biter yapping:

    Mike was born into the privileged 1%, is an Ivy League educated klepto-economist, and consistently anti-labor, so of course he thinks "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly". He's a hypocrite because has unpaid minions to re-write stories here.

    Like all his opinions, Mike never comes out and directly says, you have to ferret it out over time. So if new here, this is not the anti-plutocrat site you're looking for, Mike is as always only using this story to attack copyright indirectly.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greevar (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:12am

      Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

      That's a load of horse honky. His "unpaid minions" are volunteers that know going in that they are donating their time. Mike offers no compensation and they ask for none. They aren't being mislead, coerced, or cheated. They participate of their own free will. Your argument is about as flat as Calista Flockhart's chest.

      You are pathetic. You can't refute the arguments so, instead, you turn to personal attacks, ad hominems, and trying to kill the messenger to stop the message. Yeah, your content is compelling as eating raw tripe with live insects.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:23am

        Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

        IIRC, he's one of the people who was whining a couple of years ago on threads about the Huffington Post (the site was sold and people who had willingly donated articles tried demanding a cut despite having posted the articles for nothing). Blue, or people like him, tried defending this claiming that Huffington had somehow exploited the people who willingly gave their content for no promise of anything other than exposure through the site, which they received in full.

        The arguments are not only nonsensical and based on random assumptions, they're not even new.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

          I've noticed blue is just becoming lazy. It seems like he's just becoming an aggregate for other people's opinions.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

        His "unpaid minions" are volunteers that know going in that they are donating their time. Mike offers no compensation and they ask for none.

        You have to admire his fidelity to the principles of not paying creators for content. Yet he> seems to make money on it. Lessee.... who else does that remind me of????

        Ironic how Masnick decries those financially exploiting content creators as he cashes check after check from ad revenue generated by content he didn't pay the creator for.

        You're more like the studios than you realize. Ol Massa Mike, lording over the Techdirt Plantation.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Lowestofthekeys (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:31am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

          Hilarious rhetoric is hilarious.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Pragmatic, 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:30am

        Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

        If Cathy had a valid argument, ad hominem attacks would not be necessary.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

          If Cathy had a valid argument,...


          I asked this the other day and got no response:

          Is there any proof of this connection between this Cathy person and OOTB or is it just someone's hunch?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

            I have seen no proof. I believe it is a hunch based on writing styles and themes, which are similar. In my view, that's not solid enough evidence to say they're the same person. Also, it doesn't matter in the slightest if they are.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Pragmatic, 20 Jun 2013 @ 6:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

              I work and post here while reading during breaks, so sorry you didn't get a response.

              You're right, it's a hunch, but the identifiers and general tone are too similar to the Typepad blog "Wired State" to persuade me otherwise.

              I've spent time with this individual on other sites trying to debate her. It was a waste of time in the end so when I reply to her here it's to give her the online equivalent of a slap upside the head.

              The talking points are the same. The Google hatred is the same, the words and phrases are the same, and the issues she raises are the same. If it walks like a duck...

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2013 @ 10:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

                The talking points are the same. The Google hatred is the same, the words and phrases are the same, and the issues she raises are the same. If it walks like a duck...

                Not positive, but pretty sure it's not a duck in this case. There are some significant differences in tone and style. OOTB seems to admit that he's playing it for a joke to get a rise out of people. The other one? Not so much.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:23am

      Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

      Unpaid? Far from it. Everyday we come to this site so we can feel like this guy:

      "You know, I like you OOTB. I know that others don't but I really do. I know that no matter how many times a day I stick a drill bit up my nose in a day, I can come here, read your comments, and realize that there's somebody stupider than me. For that, OOTB, I thank you."

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:46am

      Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.

      "Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid."

      WONDERFUL!!!

      What's the next headline, fucktard?

      "Mike's paid minions are paid."

      You always have so much value to add. Thanks for the entertainment. Usually, you'd have to find a bus full of retards for stuff this brilliant.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    horse with no name, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:57am

    Non-issue

    (trusting that this comment won't get blocked by the censors)

    I think this is a non-issue. Unpaid internships are pretty common in many industries. Other industries offer only a token payment or some other form of recompense - such as working in an exotic location or other non-tangible benefits.

    Remember, many interns have no job experience, and may not even have any real training in the field. They may also being doing an internship as part of their degree in school. I did it, and I think many people in mba have done so as well.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Lowestofthekeys (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 10:07am

      Re: Non-issue

      Just because unpaid internships are common, does not mean it's okay for a company to take advantage of whatever interns are working under them.

      One of the things that bugs me about the court case is the fact that the unpaid interns "displaced regular employees and received no benefit from the internship beyond what they would have received had they been classified as employees..." and there was also no educational benefit found in what they were doing for Fox.

      (http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/246016/employee+rights+labour+relations/Court+Holds+Em ployer+Unlawfully+Classified+Workers+As+Unpaid+Interns)

      Working for free in a competitive environment like Hollywood is very counter-productive, especially if you walk away from an internship with only a few references and work experience.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:06am

    Your $25 contribution will feed 100 starving artists for a month

    These assholes are all so transparent. They claim to stand for the little guy, saying artists need to eat while cheating them out of their royalties or, as with these interns, literally paying them a starving wage.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:16am

    Now, as I've said before, I think laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly -- and if people can willingly come to an agreement where an unpaid internship makes sense, it should be allowed.
    I have to disagree with this. Even though most current unpaid internships are illegal, we get massive abuses like this. How bad would it be if they removed those laws?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ChrisB (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:09am

      Re:

      Grown adults freely entering into contracts. You are against this? Why? Because you know better? You feel we have to protect those "vulnerable adults" from their own decisions?

      The reality is if interns had to pay for the skills and experience they were learning out of their salaries, they'd be in the red.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Greevar (profile), 20 Jun 2013 @ 6:16pm

        Re: Re:

        Grown adults freely entering into contracts.

        Through professional coercion. If you don't bark on command, you won't get the very references and experience that you need, practically guaranteeing that your career comes to a dead stop right there. It's amazing what kind of contracts people will "freely" enter into when the other guy has them over a barrel.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Lowestofthekeys (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:43am

      Re:

      I can imagine there would be a lot more abuse, but that means things behind the scenes would need to change.

      Couldn't there be a fair contractual agreement to be used between a company and a person so that the intern remained protected?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:47am

    Hypocrites United!

    Fox, the MPAA, RIAA, Universal, and all of their ilk are complete hypocrites! They seem to think that the universe operates under the principle that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine also"... :-( It is time we taught them a new principle - "if you screw with me, you get the shaft"...

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:49am

    but ... but ... but ... how are big executives supposed to get paid lots of money for doing nothing if they have to actually pay those they owe money to?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 7:32am

    out_of_my_mind

    But, it does seem ridiculously hypocritical for Hollywood to parade up and down the streets of DC insisting that its main focus is to make sure all the people who work on its movies get paid, including releasing propaganda commercials highlighting non-acting movie staff, and then go out of its way to not pay people doing work on films.

    Silly Masnick. It's yet another proof the studios are dying because of all the freetards. They cannot pay everybody so they decided to pay for all those grocery store employees in their payrolls first so the world won't get so sour that soon.

    Home copying is killing grocery stores!

    You syncophants will be left crying in despair when all those grocery stores go out of business because of all the theft. So sayeth the oracle.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gorehound (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:27am

    MAFIAA.......The Greedy and Shady Industry which has longed Preyed on others.It was even founded by Thieves ! Yes, you can talk all you want to about protecting Jobs and you will abuse the system Hiring Unpaid "Interns" and there are plenty of souls for you to Prey on.
    Pay Your Damn Workers ! We also Wish we could Out all your Dirty Laundry !

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    troll hater, 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:03am

    fixing the issue

    Might I suggest not only hiding the reported comment but any comment in response to said reported comment, thus hiding the entire sordid threads created by the reported trolls.

    That would leave comments relative to the actual article easily readable for those who want relevance without the distraction of the troll comments and the comments to them, while still leaving the troll threads readable by expanding them for those so inclined.

    FTFY

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:44am

      Re: fixing the issue

      Might I suggest not only hiding the reported comment but any comment in response to said reported comment, thus hiding the entire sordid threads created by the reported trolls.


      That's been suggested many time before.

      I, for one, disagree. I have seen many threads that were started from some troll's stupid comment that ended up developing into deep, thoughtful and informative discussions. I don't feel the trade-off is worth losing those.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:26pm

        Re: Re: fixing the issue

        How about collapsing the entire thread except for comments flagged as Insightful or Funny? Or adding an option in that filter pulldown to collapse the flagged threads?

        Sometimes, I enjoy reading the troll's posts. Sometimes, I just want to hear the sane people talking.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: fixing the issue

          that's why you keep the ability to expand the reported thread. same as it ever was except the individual reader gets to decide whether or not they are subjected to the troll bullshit.

          I could further your idea by saying shut the site down. That was not my intention John. My intention was to alleviate the heartache of dealing with trolling comments and the comments of those who feel the need to play the game as some of do not.

          There are only 24 hours in any given day and filtering through trollish nonsense is not how I choose to spend my time, most days - some yes.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: fixing the issue

            I think you misunderstood my comment. I would enjoy having the entire thread below a flagged comment collapsed, just as you suggested (I've made the same suggestion before, myself). However, GWiz made an extremely cogent point, so I was proposing a compromise approach to retain the value Gwiz pointed out, but still allow the bulk of the thread to be collapsed.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:12pm

    And I meant no disrespect to you John.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:36pm

      Re:

      None taken! Indeed, even if we disagreed, your comment was civil and cogent. It's hard to take offense at that.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Votre (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 3:48pm

    Be careful what you ask for.

    Never so true as here.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Warning Letters Under UK's Three Strikes Plan Unlikely To Be Sent Out Before 2016 -- If Ever
Sweden Makes It Illegal To Take Photos In 'Private Environments' Without Permission
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.