Virtually all contractors in our field work under "work-for-hire" clauses. I am baffled by the people voting you up and those questioning you down. It is not "in the Constitution" that two parties can't agree to a binding contract that transfers ownership of work product.
The IRS tests for contractor vs. employee status break down to:
* Does the worker control the "how" as well as the "what" of their task, or do they have to e.g. work at proscribed locations during set hours?
* Does the worker control the business aspects of their work, for instance the cost of tools, the expenses incurred, &c.
* Has the company employing the worker done things to create a de facto employee relationship, such as offering benefits?
None of these are bright-line differences. Contractors routinely work on-site, 9-5, using tools provided by their employers; however, care has been taken in structuring the relationship (for instance, by working corp-to-corp with a large consulting firm or head shop that itself maintains a W2 relationship with the workers).
It is indeed possible or even likely that AOL is treading a fine line by 1099'ing the people writing its content. On the other hand, AOL can afford pretty good lawyers, and it's equally likely that every aspect of their workflow has been structured to avoid imputing employee status to people doing piecework writing for them. You should tone down your stridency. There are a lot of people on HN that consult professionally.