AOL Exposed: A Former AOL Employee Speaks Out • Hacker News Board

Re: AOL Exposed: A Former AOL Employee Speaks Out

#121

Post by munificent » Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 4:44 AM UTC

ChuckFrank wrote: post #111

ChuckFrank wrote: post #36

Creating content online is NOT a viable business model. Recent history is littered with new content creators, and they've failed. The viable business model is either to host other content - YouTube, Hulu, Pandora, GrooveShark, Earbits, etc - Or to create content that is agnostic as to their use - Hollywood Studios, NY Publishers, Music Labels. - So either AOL should transition to a creator, or transition to a online…

Having thought of the best multiple channel content creator, I've come up with Disney. Disney makes everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney Anyone have a better example, or of the elusive single online content creator? (Like AOL tired / is trying to be). We have penny arcade as the leading example. http://www.penny-arcade.com/ and since I had never heard of them before this, I am skept…

Penny Arcade has PAX (http://prime.paxsite.com/) and merch (http://store.penny-arcade.com/) to help them out. Also, giant heapings of goodwill. People love them.

Re: AOL Exposed: A Former AOL Employee Speaks Out

#122

Post by mckoss » Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 7:18 AM UTC

Why are advertisers paying $9 to $20 CPM to AOL when they generally pay a tiny fraction of that to advertise across most web sites and on Google?

Re: AOL Exposed: A Former AOL Employee Speaks Out

#123

Post by metageek » Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 10:13 PM UTC

chopsueyar wrote: post #16

metageek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the default, but I'm pretty sure the contract can say AOL gets the copyright.

The content creator licenses the content. Not a "get". 17 U.S.C. § 101 A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a…

Just because it's not a work made for hire doesn't mean the company can't receive the copyright. A copyright holder is always free to transfer the copyright; if AOL has two brain cells to knock together, their contracts with these contractors include a clause saying that the copyright is transferred to AOL.

Re: AOL Exposed: A Former AOL Employee Speaks Out

#124

Post by billybob » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 12:56 PM UTC

SemanticFog wrote: post #21

There's nothing unique to AOL here. When I first got out of college, I interviewed at local newspapers up and down the east coast. Entry level jobs had awful pay, about $15K/yr, but it was a chance to break in to the business. One grizzled editor chain smoked cigarettes through our interview (you could do that in the office back then). He listened to me describe why I wanted to write. Then he leaned back, blew a clou…

I majored in journalism and did work as a newspaper writer and photographer as a while, but didn't enjoy it. Eventually I found my way into computer programming.

The pay WAS terrible, but the job was nothing like what this AOL writer talks about. I was expected to research my stories and write them well, and was given time to do so. I would have quit if I'd been asked to crank out crap like this writer describes, and I'm sure any of my peers at the paper or in college would have done likewise. We had a lot of pride in doing good work.

I'm not sure how the financial model for journalism is going to shake out, but the world does need people who spend all their time finding out and explaining what's going on around us. It does not, however, need cookie-cutter, mindless sitcom reviews. I hope this kind of "content creation" dies a swift death.